ANNUAL REPORT

of the

CODE COMMITTEE

on

MILITARY JUSTICE

INCLUDING SEPARATE REPORTS

of the

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES,

THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL

OF THE U.S. ARMED FORCES,

AND THE CHIEF COUNSEL

OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD

For the Period

October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001
ANNUAL REPORT

SUBMITTED TO THE

COMMITTEES ON ARMED SERVICES

of the

United States Senate

and the

United States House of Representatives

and to the

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION,

and

SECRETARIES OF THE

ARMY, NAVY, AND AIR FORCE

PURSUANT TO THE

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

For the Period

October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001
CONTENTS

Section 1: JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CODE COMMITTEE

Section 2: REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ARMED FORCES

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

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

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

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

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

CODE COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO THE

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001

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

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

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

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

United States Magistrate Judge Jacob Hagopian, Public Members appointed by

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

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

of Military Justice, 10 USC § 946.

 The Code Committee met during fiscal year 2001 to consider various

matters pertaining to the administration of military justice. As in

previous years, the meeting was open to the public. The Code Committee

received a report from the Joint Service Committee concerning proposed

changes to the Manual for Courts-Martial and the Uniform Code of Military

Justice. Additionally, the Code Committee received a report from the

Chairman of the Subcommittee to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the

Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Chairman noted events in last year’s

report and receipt of a letter from the President of the United States

acknowledging the 50th Anniversary of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The Chairman of the Subcommittee also observed that many other events had

been conducted and articles had been published in various legal

publications in honor of the anniversary.

 The Code Committee also received a report from the Chairman of the

Committee established by the National Institute of Military Justice for the

purpose of addressing issues concerning proposed changes to the Uniform

Code of Military Justice. The Chairman noted that the committee had

recommended changes which included a modification of the convening

authority’s role in the military justice system, a modification of the

military judge’s role, the adoption of an Article of the Uniform Code of

Military Justice which would codify several sexual offenses in the

military, and various changes in capital cases.

 Finally, the Code Committee requested reports from each of the

services to provide data on the impact of extensions of time on appellate

processing of cases.
 Separate reports of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed

Forces and the individual Armed Forces address further items of special

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

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

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

SUSAN J. CRAWFORD

Chief Judge

EUGENE R. SULLIVAN

Associate Judge

H. F. “SPARKY” GIERKE

Associate Judge

ANDREW S. EFFRON

Associate Judge

JAMES E. BAKER

Associate Judge

Major General THOMAS J. ROMIG, USA

The Judge Advocate General of the Army

Rear Admiral DONALD J. GUTER, USN

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy

Major General WILLIAM A. MOORMAN, USAF

The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force

Rear Admiral R. F. DUNCAN, USCG

Chief Counsel, U.S. Coast Guard

Brigadier General JOSEPH COMPOSTO, USMC

Director, Judge Advocate Division

Headquarters, United States Marine Corps

Professor LEE D. SCHINASI

Public Member

Magistrate Judge JACOB HAGOPIAN

Public Member

2
SECTION 2

REPORT OF THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ARMED FORCES
REPORT OF THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ARMED FORCES

October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001

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

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

justice during the 2001 Term of the Court to the Committees on Armed

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

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

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

Military Justice, 10 USC § 946.

THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT

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

statistical report and graphs. Additional information pertaining to

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

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

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

 Senior Judge Robinson O. Everett and Senior Judge Walter T. Cox III,

were recalled and participated in the review and decision of several cases

during the 2001 Term of Court.

 During the 2001 Term of Court, the Court admitted 257 attorneys to

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

the Bar of the Court to 32,226.

PUBLIC AWARENESS PROJECT

(PROJECT OUTREACH)

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

several special sessions and heard oral arguments in selected cases outside

its permanent Courthouse in Washington, D.C., during the 2001 Term of

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

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

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

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

of the parties, at Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C., St.

Mary’s University School of Law, San Antonio, Texas, the Supreme Court of

Texas, Austin, Texas, and the United States Military Academy, West Point,

New York.
 “Project Outreach” has continued to promote an increased public

awareness of the fundamental fairness of the military criminal justice

system and the role of the Court in the overall administration of military

justice throughout the world. The Court hopes that those who attend these

hearings from both military and civilian communities will garner further

appreciation for the United States military, the Uniform Code of Military

Justice, and the essential role both play in providing for United States

national security.

JUDICIAL VISITATIONS

 During the 2001 Term of Court, the Judges of the Court, consistent

with past practice and their ethical responsibility to oversee and improve

the entire military criminal justice system, participated in professional

training programs for military and civilian lawyers, spoke to professional

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

commanders at various military installations throughout the world.

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE

 On June 13 and 14, 2001, the Court held its annual Judicial Conference

at the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, Washington,

D.C. The program for this Judicial Conference was certified for credit to

meet the continuing legal education requirements of numerous State Bars

throughout the United States. The Conference opened with welcoming remarks

and a presentation by the Honorable Susan J. Crawford, Chief Judge, United

States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, followed by speakers for this

year’s Conference, including The Honorable Anthony J. Principi, Secretary

of Veterans’ Affairs, Professor Kenneth R. Feinberg, Georgetown University

Law Center, Captain Kevin J. Barry, USCG (Ret.), Attorney at Law, The

Honorable Walter T. Cox III, Senior Judge, United States Court of Appeals

for the Armed Forces, Professor Jonathan Lurie, Rutgers University,

Historian to the Court, Mr. Eugene R. Fidell, Attorney at Law, Colonel

Charles R. Myers, USAF (Ret.), Professor Emeritus, United States Air Force

Academy, Professor Lee D. Schinasi, Director, Center for Legal Education,

University of Miami School of Law, Professor Jonathan R. Turley, George

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

Washington University School of Law, Major Victor M. Hansen, USA,

Professor, Criminal Law Division, The Army Judge Advocate General’s School,

Major Timothy C. MacDonnell, USA, Professor, Criminal Law Division, The

Army Judge Advocate General’s School, and Captain John E. Deaton, USMC,

Instructor, Naval Justice School.

SUSAN J. CRAWFORD

Chief Judge

EUGENE R. SULLIVAN

Associate Judge

2
H.F. “SPARKY” GIERKE

Associate Judge

ANDREW S. EFFRON

Associate Judge

JAMES E. BAKER

Associate Judge

3
USCA STATISTICAL REPORT

2001 TERM OF COURT

CUMULATIVE SUMMARY

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 2000

Master Docket .............................. 70

Petition Docket ............................ 152

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

TOTAL ...................................... 225

CUMULATIVE FILINGS

Master Docket .............................. 131

Petition Docket ............................ 926

Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 39

TOTAL ......................................1096

CUMULATIVE TERMINATIONS

Master Docket .............................. 141

Petition Docket ............................ 888

Miscellaneous Docket ....................... 39

TOTAL ......................................1068

CUMULATIVE PENDING OCTOBER 1, 2001

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

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

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

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

OPINION SUMMARY

CATEGORY SIGNED PER CURIAM MEM/ORDER TOTAL

Master Docket ........... 70 2 69 141

Petition Docket ......... 1 0 887 888

Miscellaneous Docket .... 0 0 39 39

TOTAL ................... 71 2 995 1068

4
FILINGS (MASTER DOCKET)

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

 Returned from Court of Criminal Appeals.... 3

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

 Certificates filed ........................ 3

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

 Petitions granted (from Petition Docket)... 125

 TOTAL ..................................... 131

TERMINATIONS (MASTER DOCKET)

 Findings & sentence affirmed .............. 105

 Reversed in whole or in part .............. 35 Signed .... 70

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

 Other disposition directed ................ 1 Mem/order .. 69

 TOTAL ..................................... 141 TOTAL ...... 141

PENDING (MASTER DOCKET)

 Awaiting briefs ........................... 20

 Awaiting oral argument .................... 26

 Awaiting lead case decision (trailer cases) 6

 Awaiting final action ..................... 8

 TOTAL ..................................... 60

FILINGS (PETITION DOCKET)

 Petitions for grant of review filed ....... 898

 Petitions for new trial filed ............. 2

 Cross-petitions for grant filed ........... 26

 Petitions for reconsideration granted ..... 0

 Returned from Court of Criminal Appeals ... 0

 TOTAL ..................................... 926

TERMINATIONS (PETITION DOCKET)

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

 Petitions for grant denied ................ 738

 Petitions for grant granted ............... 126

 Petitions for grant remanded .............. 6 Signed ...... 0

 Petitions for grant withdrawn ............. 13 Per curiam .. 0

 Other ..................................... 1 Mem/order.. 888

 TOTAL ..................................... 888 TOTAL .... 888

5
PENDING (PETITION DOCKET)

 Awaiting briefs ........................... 88

 Awaiting Central Legal Staff review ....... 18

 Awaiting final action ..................... 84

 TOTAL ..................................... 190

FILINGS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET)

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

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

 Writs of habeas corpus sought ............... 0

 Other extraordinary relief sought ........... 3

 Writ appeals sought ......................... 36

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

TERMINATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET)

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

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

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

 Petitions denied ............................ 37 Signed .... 0

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

 Other ....................................... 0 Mem/order.. 39

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

PENDING (MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET)

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

 Awaiting Writs Counsel review ............... 1

 Awaiting final action ....................... 1

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

RECONSIDERATIONS & REHEARINGS

 BEGIN END DISPOSITIONS

CATEGORY PENDING FILINGS PENDING Granted Denied Total

All Cases .... 4 12 0 0 16 16

MOTIONS ACTIVITY

 BEGIN END DISPOSITIONS

CATEGORY PENDING FILINGS PENDING Granted Denied Other Total

All motions ..... 12 480 7 414 69 2 485

6










SECTION 3

REPORT OF THE

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

OCTOBER 1, 2000 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2001

During fiscal year 2001 (FY 01) and in compliance with Article 6(a),

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

senior members of his staff made 22 official visits of field legal offices

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

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

prepare military publications and regulations, and develop and draft

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

Field Operating Agencies, OTJAG provided judicial and appellate services,

advice, assistance, and professional education to ensure the efficient

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

Army end strength of 480,801 in FY 01. The Army end strength was 482,170

in FY 00.

SIGNIFICANT MILITARY JUSTICE ACTIONS

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

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

actions. Specific responsibilities include the following: promulgating

military justice regulations, reviewing Army regulations for legal

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

felony and magistrate court prosecutions, producing legal opinions for the

Army Staff relating to military justice matters, statistical analysis and

evaluation of trends in judicial and nonjudicial punishment and responding

to congressional inquiries.

Criminal Law Division workload data for the last three fiscal years

is displayed below:

FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

White House inquiries 111 163 161

Congressional and other inquiries 330 312 272

Clemency Petitions, Article 74,

UCMJ

885

Officer Dismissals 14 23 22

Freedom of Information

Act/Privacy Act

63 54 13

On March 19, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for

writ of certiorari in United States v. Gray, 51 MJ 1 (1999), rendering the

conviction in that case final. The case, as well as that in United States

v. Loving, 517 U.S. 748 (1996), must now be transmitted to the President

for his action on the sentence of death.
JOINT SERVICE COMMITTEE (JSC) ON MILITARY JUSTICE

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

Courts-Martial (MCM). The last edition published was the 2000 edition of

the MCM commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the Uniform Code of Military

Justice. It is available in hardcopy from the Government Printing Office

at http://www.gpo.gov/ or by telephone at (202) 512-1800; fax (202) 512-

2250. The MCM is also available electronically at

http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/mcm2000.pdf.

During FY 01, the JSC completed its seventeenth annual review of the

MCM. This review was published in the Federal Register for public comment

on 6 June 2001 and a public meeting was held on 19 July 2001 to receive

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

proposed changes include the following: amendments to R.C.M. 307 giving

guidance on pleading aggravating factors; R.C.M 806 is amended to provide

procedures to be followed, and standards to be applied, by the military

judge in controlling public access to courts-martial proceedings; changes

to R.C.M. 1103 providing that in a rehearing, the maximum sentence that can

be adjudged is not limited by the prior adjudged sentence, but the

convening authority cannot approve a greater sentence than that previously

adjudged; R.C.M. 1108 now provides limitations on suspension or remission

of a sentence to a sentence to life without possibility of parole; Mil. R.

Evid. 103 is now in conformity with the Federal Rules of Evidence to

provide that once a definitive ruling on the admissibility of evidence is

made by the military judge it does not have to be raised again by the

objecting party to preserve it as appellate issue; Mil. R. Evid. 404 now

virtually mirrors the Federal Rules of Evidence and allows for a more

balanced presentation of character evidence when the accused attacks the

character of the victim; Mil. R. Evid. 701 now follows the changes to the

Federal Rules and prevents a party from proffering an expert witness as a

lay witness in order to avoid the gatekeeper and reliability requirements

of Rule 702; Mil. R. Evid. 702 now mirrors the Federal Rules and provides

guidance as to the factors to be considered in admitting expert testimony;

Mil. R. Evid. 703 is again patterned after the new Federal Rules and

precludes an expert from disclosing to the members inadmissible evidence

that forms the basis for his expert opinion; Mil. R. Evid. 803 now permits

a certificate to be used in lieu of a live witness to lay the foundation

for admissibility of certain business records; two new elements are added

to Article 120, Rape and Carnal Knowledge, and the sample specifications,

covering two distinct categories of youthful victims; Article 125, Sodomy,

adds similar age categories to the elements of the offense, and sample

specification, to reflect the two distinct categories of sodomy based upon

the age of the victim.

2
The JSC also drafted a consolidated Executive order (EO) to amend the

MCM to implement three previous EOs from 1998, 1999, and 2000 that were not

acted on before the change in administrations. This consolidated EO is

pending executive approval at the end of FY 2001.

The JSC also continued its studies on joint military justice and

proposals forwarded from a commission sponsored by the National Institute

of Military Justice, also known as the Cox Commission.

MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

STATISTICAL SUMMARY: FY 01

(See table insert, attached)

U.S. ARMY LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY

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

OTJAG, includes the following organizations involved in the administration

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

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

the Trial Counsel Assistance Program.

U.S. ARMY JUDICIARY

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

Appeals, the Clerk of Court, the Examination and New Trials Division, and

the Trial Judiciary.

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

66, Uniform Code of Military Justice. The cases are referred to one of the

three judicial panels of the US Army Court of Criminal Appeals for

appellate review. Also received are appeals under Article 62, Petitions

for Extraordinary Relief, and Withdrawals from Appellate Review.

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

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

received from federal and state investigative agencies, law enforcement

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

the Brady Bill requires the processing of handgun applications within three

workdays, many expedited requests are received from the FBI’s NICS program.

Also, state sexual offender registries submit many requests.

The Office of the Clerk of Court provides assistance to overseas

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

to overseas trials. This includes making travel arrangements, assisting

with requests for expedited passport processing and issuing invitational

travel orders.

3
Inquiries received in FY 2001: 580

Freedom of Information Act 214

Privacy Act 74

Certified Copies of Convictions 292

U.S. ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE

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

consisting of approximately 130 attorneys, provided high quality,

professional defense services to soldiers throughout the Army from 55

offices worldwide. USATDS counsel defended soldiers facing the entire

range of allegations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

USATDS counsel workload from FY 98 through FY 01 is displayed below.

FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

General Courts-Martial 694 722 733 770

Special Courts-Martial 286 331 392 354

Administrative Boards 597 698 597 826

Nonjudicial Punishment 32,181 31,595 30,633 35,786

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

USATDS provided defense services to deployed forces around the world,

including Southwest Asia, Macedonia, Haiti, Kuwait, Hungary, Bosnia and

Kosovo. TDS counsel worldwide continue to achieve phenomenal success at

the pretrial stages of litigation. By getting actively involved in the

case at its earliest stages, in many instances, defense counsel have

successfully negotiated non-punitive dispositions of cases. At some

locations, TDS maintained inter-service agreements to provide defense

services to military personnel of sister services and TDS counsel continued

to support soldiers at Physical Evaluation Boards.

Beginning in the summer 2001, TDS conducted a Force Design Update

(FDU) in coordination with the Combat Developments Department of The Judge

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

reviewed how best to provide trial defense services to the Army.

Specifically, TDS examined the organization’s current operational

requirements and recommended changes to the doctrine, training, and

organization.

4
TDS continues to expand its use of desktop video teleconference

(DVTC) equipment to provide defense services to clients who are not colocated with TDS counsel. The technology has been used quite successfully,

particularly at offices located outside the continental United States

(OCONUS). At Fort Lewis, the technology has been so successful that the

Regional Defense Counsel hopes to expand the service to provide DVTC

capabilities to Hawaii with connectivity to the Atolls, Guam, and to

Alaska. Likewise, throughout Germany, the DVTC technology has been very

successful in providing defense services to remote locations. The Regional

Defense Counsel in Wuerzberg hopes to expand the DVTC capabilities with

connectivity from Germany to Kosovo and Bosnia.

In 2001, TDS entered into a formal Memorandum of Understanding with

the Defense Appellate Division (DAD). The MOU established the procedures

by which a case, in which the appellate court has ordered a rehearing on

findings or sentence, is transferred from appellate counsel to trial

defense counsel. TDS and DAD continue to foster a very close working

relationship.

TDS counsel continue to foster a close working relationship with

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

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

provides defense services to soldiers assigned to units in the Eastern half

of CONUS and in Europe, and the 22d TDS LSO provides defense services to

soldiers assigned to units in the Western half CONUS. Many individual TDS

offices have established joint training program with their local reserve

TDS personnel and have conducted highly successful joint training

conferences. Reserve support to active duty TDS offices remains

outstanding.

Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Training for TDS counsel was

conducted in weeklong, consolidated regional conferences twice a year,

attended by active duty TDS counsel and open to reserve TDS counsel as

well. The multi-region approach to CLEs results in more productive and

informative CLEs, benefiting all attendees. The FY 01 CLEs were conducted

at Sonthofen, Germany; Fort Carson, CO; Lackland Air Force Base, TX; Las

Vegas, NV; and at the Department of Justice's National Advocacy Center in

Columbia, South Carolina. The National Advocacy Center is a new, state-ofthe-art advocacy training facility that includes a fully automated 50-seat

lecture hall and five fully automated courtrooms. The NAC is a selfcontained training facility devoted almost entirely to advocacy. The

facility provided the ideal environment for TDS counsel to focus on honing

their courtroom skills and to expanding their knowledge of military

justice.

5
TRIAL COUNSEL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

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

fulfilled its mission of providing information, advice, training

opportunities, and trial assistance to American military prosecutors

worldwide. Composed of three Army judge advocates and supported by a

civilian secretary, TCAP also serves as a third branch of the Army’s

Government Appellate Division and utilizes this position to link trial and

appellate counsel together to resolve issues of common import to the

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

the prosecutor’s appellate advocate for extraordinary writs during the

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

litigation of cases that have passed through the ordinary course of

appellate review. In tandem, these dual missions for TCAP buttress the

fieldwork of trials by court-martial and enhance the appellate finality of

ensuing convictions.

TCAP provided five basic categories of services during FY 2001: (1)

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

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

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

appellate assistance. In so doing, TCAP personnel accomplished the

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

requests for assistance per month; (2) conducted over a dozen advocacy

training courses and other training events in the United States, Korea, and

Germany, providing over 200 hours of continuing legal education to

approximately 150 military judge advocates; (3) provided electronic and

paper copies of countless articles and other publications to judge

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

messages on the TCAP internet website as well as responded to messages and

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

trial of numerous courts-martial; and (6) responded to approximately 10

extraordinary writs and government appeals filed in either the Army Court

of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) or the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

(CAAF), as well as prepared 15 answers and returns to habeas corpus

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

United States Court of Appeals for several circuits. In September, two

TCAP counsel presented oral argument on behalf of the United States in a

habeas case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3d Circuit.

In response to the need for vigorous investigation, prosecution and

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

training seminars. The new version trains participants in a “start-tofinish” approach employing complex facts and issues within a mock child

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

under critical scrutiny. Additionally, based on a successful pilot study,

6
TCAP’s website will soon include 26 training scenarios that allow the user

to train himself on issues and legal principles involved in sexual abuse

cases. TCAP will also soon utilize a database that captures the expertise

of National Guard and Reserve judge advocates so to enhance the training

value of the various training events. Finally, TCAP will host a seminar in

September 2002 wherein attending judge advocates will learn up-to-date

information and approaches to the prosecution of child sexual exploitation.

FOREIGN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

As Executive Agent for foreign criminal jurisdiction, the Army,

through the International and Operational Law Division, OTJAG, compiles

information concerning the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction over

U.S. personnel.

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

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

the exercise of foreign criminal jurisdiction during this reporting period:

 1 Dec 1998 1 Dec 1999

 to to

30 Nov 1999 30 Nov 2000

Foreign Offense Citations 5,233 4,440

Total Civilian 1,346 1,254

Total Military 3,887 3,186

Exclusive Foreign 183 190

Concurrent Jurisdiction 3,704 2,996

Traffic/Other Minor Offenses 430 283

Foreign Jurisdiction 708 435

With the exception of Exclusive Foreign Jurisdiction, there was a

decrease in all categories. This decrease was proportional across all

categories in certain major offenses, such as robbery, larceny, aggravated

assault, simple assault, and drug offenses.

This year, foreign authorities released to U.S. authorities 11 of the

190 exclusive foreign jurisdiction cases involving military personnel. In

concurrent jurisdiction cases in which the foreign countries had the

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

able to obtain waivers of the exercise of this jurisdiction in 2,740 cases.

Overall, the U.S. obtained waivers in 91.4% of all exclusive and concurrent

jurisdiction cases. This figure reflects a 6.6% increase in such waivers

from 1998-1999, when the relevant figure was 84.8%.

7
During the last reporting period, civilian employees and dependents

were involved in 1,346 offenses. Foreign authorities released 254 of these

cases (18.9% of this total) to U.S. military authorities for administrative

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

and dependents were involved in 1,254 offenses. The foreign authorities

released 94 of these cases (7.5% of the current total).

Foreign authorities tried a total of 1,064 cases. Ten trials, or

0.9%, resulted in acquittals. Those convicted were sentenced as follows:

23 cases resulted in executed confinement; 57 cases resulted in suspended

confinement; and 974 cases (91.5% of the total trials) resulted in only

fines or reprimands.

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

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

responsibility program. This program comprises (1) administratively

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

field inquiries concerning professional misconduct allegations, (3)

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

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

Professional Responsibility Committee and its issuance of advisory ethics

opinions.

The office also oversees professional responsibility training within

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

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

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

training programs at commands and offices.

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

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

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

During FY 2001:

• Credibility Reviews. 36 complaints were administratively closed

after credibility reviews determined that no inquiries were warranted

(up 29 percent from FY 2000’s 28 administrative closures).

• Inquiries. Six inquiries were conducted and closed (down 70 percent

from FY 2000’s 20 closed inquiries).

8
Of the six closed inquiries, three resulted in findings of minor

attorney misconduct:

• One prosecutor was counseled by his supervisor for improperly

communicating with three represented soldiers.

• Two other attorneys received written reprimands from their supervisor

after plagiarizing book reviews assigned for their office’s

professional development program.

LITIGATION

FY 01 was another busy year for Army attorneys defending the

Department of the Army and its officials in civil litigation, as

approximately 470 civil actions were filed in federal, state, and

international courts. Cases that require civilian courts to interpret the

UCMJ remain a small, but significant portion of this total. Most of these

cases are by (former) soldiers seeking collateral review of courts-martial

proceedings, usually via petitions for writs of habeas corpus filed in

federal district courts, or in back-pay actions filed in the Court of

Federal Claims. Other suits involve challenges to confinement conditions,

to decisions to deny clemency or parole, to revoke parole, or to other

administrative actions taken by confinement facility officials.

One case of particular note, Hall v. Department of Defense, involves

a class action filed in 1997 by all inmates confined at the United States

Disciplinary Barracks (USDB). The inmates claim they are subject to unsafe

living conditions that violate the Eighth Amendment proscription against

cruel and unusual punishment. They allege that the USDB main building is

structurally unsound, that they are exposed to unsafe environmental

conditions, and that they are improperly subjected to certain

administrative practices. The district court denied the inmates’ request

for a preliminary injunction ordering the Army to transfer them to other

correctional institutions. In January 1999, the Army filed a motion for

summary judgment maintaining that there is no issue of fact that the

inmates are not exposed to unsafe living conditions and that the

administrative practices of which they complain are proper, accepted

correctional methods. Plaintiffs’ attorney later moved to dismiss the

case, claiming that because the new DB will be completed in 2001, the

issues presented by the lawsuit will be moot. The court dismissed the

lawsuit with prejudice in February 2001. Several of the inmates, however,

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

interim, the Army Corps of Engineers moved back the completion date for the

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

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

will have on the inmates’ health and safety.

9
Litigation Division is also defending several cases challenging the

Feres doctrine as it applies to military prisoners after their punitive

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

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

The lead case, Ricks v. Nickels, is before the 10th Circuit Court of

Appeals and involves a military prisoner who alleges he suffered injuries

at the USDB after he received his punitive discharge and therefore while he

was no longer a servicemember for purposes of determining whether his

injuries were incident to service. The appellate court should definitively

decide the applicability of Feres to post-discharge military prisoners

soon. These decisions will have broad ramifications for the USDB and all

RCFs.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

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

(TJAGSA) in Charlottesville, Virginia continues to fine tune advocacy

training and broaden the understanding of the military justice system.

Advocacy training is at the top of the Department's mission essential

task list. The instructors concentrate their efforts to provide quality

advocacy training to three Basic Courses and two Criminal Law Advocacy

Courses each year. During the Basic Course, each student serves as a trial

counsel or defense counsel in three exercises, an administrative separation

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

in a capstone exercise, each student plays the role of trial counsel who

must advise a special court-martial convening authority regarding several

pending military justice decisions in a contentious sexual offense case.

Advanced advocacy training continued with the 15th and 16th Criminal

Law Advocacy Courses. The Department trained 120 judge advocates from all

branches of service during two intense two-week courses in the spring and

fall. In addition to a concentrated course of evidence instruction, the

trial and defense counsel developed skills necessary to try courts-martial,

from opening statements to sentencing arguments. The Department was

augmented by seasoned and experienced Reserve judge advocates, all trial

practitioners. The augmentation allowed for unique, small-group

instruction based on student strengths and weaknesses.

The Criminal Law Department hosted several short courses in addition

to Basic Course and Graduate Course instruction. Forty-four judge

advocates received in-depth instruction during the 44th Military Judges

Course before certification as trial judges. The 7th Military Justice

Managers Course began with a demonstration of the new voice recognition

software training that is currently being fielded to court reporters.

10
The course also included blocks of instruction on forensic evidence and

crime scene management in addition to heavy emphasis on post-trial

processing of cases. The course deskbook may be obtained at the TJAGSA

home page under the publication listing:

http://www.jagcnet.army.mil/tjagsa.

Of particular note last year, the Department hosted two special

activities in observance of the 50th Anniversary of the Uniform Code of

Military Justice. At the Worldwide CLE in October, the Department

presented a historical retrospective titled Evolution of a System of

Discipline and Justice, highlighting some of the more significant events in

the Code's development. Additionally, the Department hosted a symposium of

several primary participants of the My Lai trials. The former trial and

defense counsel presented their thoughts and recollections of the Vietnam

era trials, thereby preserving one of the significant events in the Code's

history.

The Criminal Law Department hosted several distinguished guest

speakers, including Colonels David L. Hayden, Adele H. Odegard, and Gary

Smith, who provided sage trial advocacy advice to students of the 15th

CLAC. Major General John D. Altenburg, Jr. culminated several years of

delivering advocacy addresses with a popular and motivational presentation

to the 16th CLAC. Students in that course also heard Colonel Denise K.

Vowell present a view of trial advocacy from the bench. Mr. Andrew J.

Oosterbaan of the Department of Justice presented an overview of federal

prosecution of Internet crimes against children to the students of the 24th

New Developments Course. The students also received a presentation on

reforms in the Canadian military justice system. Brigadier General Wayne

E. Alley, Retired, a federal judge in Oklahoma, opened the 44th Military

Judges Course in May with his unique perspective on sitting as a trial

judge. Mr. Oosterbaan returned to the School and presented a substantive

crimes presentation regarding computer offenses. New military justice

managers received descriptive and notable instruction on the post-trial

processing of a court-martial from Colonel (Retired) Joseph A. Neurauter,

Clerk of the Court, Army Court of Criminal Appeals. The Honorable Robinson

O. Everett delivered the 29th Hodson Lecture in May. Judge Everett treated

the audience with an insightful perspective of the first fifty years of

Uniform Code of Military Justice.

PERSONNEL, PLANS, AND POLICIES

The strength of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps at the end of FY

01 was 1,462 (including general officers). This total does not include 73

officers participating in the Funded Legal Education Program. The diverse

composition of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps included 126 AfricanAmericans, 40 Hispanics, 54 Asians and Native Americans, and 371 women.

11
The FY 01 end strength of 1,462 compares with an end strength of 1,427 in

FY 00, 1,426 in FY 99, 1,499 in FY 98, 1,523 in FY 97, 1,541 in FY 96,

1,561 in FY 95, 1,575 in FY 94, and 1,646 in FY 93. The grade distribution

of the Corps was 5 general officers; 133 colonels; 215 lieutenant colonels;

309 majors; and 800 captains. Seventy-one warrant officers, 414 civilian

attorneys, and 1,510 enlisted soldiers supported legal operations

worldwide.

THOMAS J. ROMIG

Major General, USA

The Judge Advocate General

12
APPENDIX - U.S. ARMY MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Report Period: FISCAL YEAR 2001

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons)

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/

DECREASE (-) OVER

LAST REPORT

GENERAL 770 739 31 +5.33%

BCD SPECIAL [A] 354 331 23 -8.29%

NON-BCD SPECIAL 3 2 1 -57.14%

SUMMARY 672 645 27 +0.9%

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT 0.50%

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED [B]

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES (67) + dismissals (11) 67 + 11

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 285

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL (TR LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 169

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 569

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 152

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 172

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

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 105 [C]

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D]

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D]

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 786 [C]

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 775 [E]

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 117 [C]

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D]

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [D]

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD 14.8%

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

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

NUMBER 736

PERCENTAGE 96.71%

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

 (CAAF)

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 326 of 775 42.1%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD 0.0%

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 52 of 326 15.95%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -20.64%

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY USACCA 6.7%

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD ] +36.40%

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

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 3

RECEIVED 11

DISPOSED OF 8

 GRANTED 0

 DENIED 7

 NO JURISDICTION 1

 WITHDRAWN 0

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 6

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 588

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 295

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 182

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 62

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 16

PART 10 – STRENGTH

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 480783

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ)

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 45082

RATE PER 1,000 93.76

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD +9.19%

EXPLANATORY NOTES

 

[A] Acquittals include cases withdrawn or dismissed after arraignment.

[B] Based on records of trial received during FY 2001 for appellate review.

[C] Includes only cases briefed and at issue.

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

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

Page 2 of 2
SECTION 4

REPORT OF THE

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

OCTOBER 1, 2000 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2001

SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF

MILITARY JUSTICE

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

Military Justice, the Judge Advocate General and the Deputy Judge Advocate

General made frequent inspections of legal offices in the United States,

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

military justice.

ARTICLE 69(a), UCMJ, EXAMINATIONS

Twenty-three general courts-martial records of trial not statutorily

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

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

Advocate General in fiscal year 2001. Fifteen were pending at the end of

fiscal year 2000. Out of the 29 cases completed, none required corrective

action by the Judge Advocate General. Nine cases are pending review at the

close of fiscal year 2001.

ARTICLE 69(b), UCMJ, APPLICATIONS

In fiscal year 2001, 20 applications under Article 69(b), UCMJ, were

received for review. Eight such applications remained pending from fiscal

year 2000. Of these 28 applications, 14 were denied on the merits.

Fourteen cases are currently pending review.

ARTICLE 73, UCMJ, PETITIONS

In fiscal year 2001, the Office of the Judge Advocate General

received one petition for a new trial. Two petitions were denied and one

petition is pending review at the close of fiscal year 2001.

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION

Appellate Defense Practice. Appellate Defense filed a total of 1708

cases during fiscal year 2001 but received 2056 new records of trial. A

total of 19% of the cases reviewed were fully briefed to the Navy-Marine

Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, and another 9% were summarily assigned.

In addition, 112 cases were petitioned to the Court of Appeals for the

Armed Forces, and three to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Division counsel engaged in oral argument in 19 cases before the Court of

Appeals for the Armed Forces and 12 cases before the Navy-Marine Corps

Court of Criminal Appeals.
The Division experienced a significant amount of personnel turnover

during the year and was never staffed at more than 15 active duty judge

advocates. The support of 36 Reserve Navy and Marine Corps judge advocates

assigned to Appellate Defense proved invaluable in maintaining some

progress against the case backlog. Captain Carol J. Cooper, JAGC, USN

returned as the Division Director in September 2001, relieving Commander

Richard Bagley, JAGC, USN, and has set the goal of reducing the backlog as

a top priority for the Division.

Reserve Support. As noted above, the reserve component continues to

provide outstanding support to the Appellate Defense Division. The reserve

units are:

NR NAVJAG 109, Columbus, Ohio, commanded by Captain John Fabian, JAGC,

USNR.

NR NAMARA (Defense) 111, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, commanded by Captain

Donald Davidson, JAGC, USNR.

NAVJAG 519, Los Angeles, California, commanded by Captain Donald Nelson,

JAGC, USNR.

NAVJAG 211, Fort Worth, Texas, commanded by Captain Robert White, JAGC,

USNR.

 In addition, the Division received volunteer support from two

dedicated Naval Reserve judge advocates from NR VTU [Voluntary Training

Unit] 614. The Marine Corps Reserve contingent consisted of 11

independently assigned Reserve judge advocates.

In addition to maintaining an active caseload, several Reserve

attorneys provided specialized assistance to Division counsel in the three

capital cases currently under review in the Division. The Appellate

Defense Division provides a tremendous example of Reserve and active duty

commands working as a team to accomplish a mission that neither could

possibly do alone.

Capital Litigation. In fiscal year 2001, the Appellate Defense

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

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

and the defense reply is pending. In the companion case of U.S. v. Walker,

the defense brief is pending completion. Various motions were filed in the

third case, U.S. v. Quintanilla, regarding the appellate procedures to be

utilized. All were denied and the brief on the merits is still pending.

2
The Navy-Marine Corps Capital Litigation Resource Center (CLRC)

remained vacant during this year since Captain Lazzaro’s release from

active duty. Captain Cooper, the new Director of Appellate Defense, will,

in addition to her duties as the Director, provide assistance to the field

in any cases where the death penalty is being seriously considered or

sought.

Trial Defense Assistance. The Appellate Defense Division provides

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

continuing basis. The Division maintains a rotating Field Call watch

comprised of experienced appellate attorneys who reply to short-fused

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

filing extraordinary writs if the case warrants. In addition, appellate

defense attorneys gave presentations at the world-wide Navy Judge Advocate

General’s Conference and at training sessions for trial defense counsel at

Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and Naval Air Station, Jacksonville,

Florida. These presentations focused on “hot topics” in appellate

litigation and how to best preserve issues for appeal at the trial level.

Individual counsel made trips to the Pacific Northwest and Great Lakes,

Illinois to facilitate defense counsel training at the regional Naval

Legal Service Offices.

APPELLATE GOVERNMENT DIVISION

Active-Duty Personnel. The Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Review

Activity, Appellate Government Division had ten (10) active duty officers

and three (3) civilian employees on hand at the end of fiscal year 2001.

The Division Director, Colonel Marc W. Fisher, USMC, transferred

during July 2001; he was replaced by Colonel Rose Marie Favors, USMC.

Due to unforeseen circumstances stemming from the national tragedy that

occurred on September 11, 2001, the Division Deputy, Commander Peter

Dutton, USN, transferred to another command at the end of fiscal year

2001; he was replaced by the next senior member of the Division, Major

Robert M. Fuhrer, USMC.

During fiscal year 2001, six (6) other officers joined the Division

but, eight (8) senior, experienced officers either transferred or were

released from active duty. Except for the Director, only three (3)

officers on hand at the end of fiscal year 2001 had more than one year’s

experience in the Division.

Reserve Personnel. During fiscal year 2001, two Naval Reserve

Detachments and eight Marine Corps Reserve judge advocates supported the

Division’s mission for a total of sixteen (16)officers and four (4)

enlisted members. However, in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, one of

the Marine judge advocates accepted orders for Active Duty Special Work

and transferred to another command.

3
Appellate Representation. During fiscal year 2001, the Appellate

Government Division (Code 46), Navy-Marine Corps Appellate Review

Activity, filed a total of 894 pleadings (excluding requests for

enlargement of time). Of these, 772 were filed with the Navy-Marine Corps

Court of Appeals, and 122 were filed with the United States Court of

Appeals for the Armed Forces. Members of the Division participated in 31

oral arguments before the two courts.

Field Assistance. The Division’s Trial Counsel Assistance Program

(TCAP) responded to hundreds of telephone calls or electronic messages

from trial counsel and staff judge advocates. Inquiries concerned the

full spectrum of military justice matters and covered all phases of courtmartial proceedings.

NAVY-MARINE CORPS TRIAL JUDICIARY

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

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

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

supported by Naval Reserve and Marine Corps Individual Mobilization

Augmentees.

The Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary (NMCTJ) consists of 31 active

duty judges and 29 reservists serving in 12 circuits and five branch

offices. During fiscal year 2001, NMCTJ provided judicial services in 481

general courts-martial and 2264 special courts-martial. These numbers

represent an increase in general courts-martial (53) and a decrease in

special courts-martial (117) compared to fiscal year 2000.

NMCTJ provided judicial services to Fleet and Shore Activities, and

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

Trial Judiciary participated in continuing education at the Army Judge

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

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

College at the University Of Nevada.

NMCTJ also provided training at various levels, including the NavyMarine Corps Senior Officer Course and other in-service courses. NMCTJ

performed an active role in mentoring judge advocates through both formal

and informal training sessions.

NAVAL LEGAL SERVICE COMMAND

Naval Legal Service Command (NAVLEGSVCCOM) is commanded by the Deputy

Judge Advocate General of the Navy and includes 290 Judge Advocates, 16

Limited Duty (Legal) Officers, 203 Legalmen, and 219 civilians.

NAVLEGSVCCOM provides a wide range of legal services to afloat and ashore

4
commands, active duty naval personnel, family members, and retirees from 57

offices world-wide: eight Naval Legal Service Offices (NLSOs), five Trial

Service Offices (TSOs), the Naval Justice School, and 44 detachments and

branch offices. Last year NAVLEGSVCCOM opened a Branch Trial Service

Office in Ventura County, California to support Naval Commands in that

region. NAVLEGSVCCOM provides counsel for courts-martial, administrative

boards, physical evaluation boards, legal assistance, and local commanders.

NAVLEGSVCCOM also provides assistance for claims processing, and

adjudication, and training judge advocates, legalmen, and other DOD

personnel. During fiscal year 2001, NAVLEGSVCCOM provided counsel for 263

general courts-martial, 739 special courts-martial, 306 Article 32s, 1022

Administrative Boards, processed over 31,000 claims, provided over 219,966

legal assistance services, and provided over 45,131 command assistance

services.

NAVLEGSVCCOM completed the implementation of a Legal Assistance

module for the Time Matters Case Management System and is in the process of

developing a military justice module. When fully implemented, this system

will allow us to more closely track military justice cases.

NAVAL JUSTICE SCHOOL

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

Legal Service Command, for administrative and operational control. The

main NJS facility is located in Newport, Rhode Island. Teaching

detachments are based in San Diego, California, and Norfolk, Virginia

(areas of fleet concentration).

Mission Statement. NJS shall:

1. Oversee training of judge advocates, Limited Duty Officers (law),

and Legalmen to ensure their career-long professional development and

readiness.

2. Provide comprehensive formal training to all sea service judge

advocates and other legal personnel to promote justice and ensure the

delivery of quality legal advice and other legal services.

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

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

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

administration of military Justice.

Coordination. Through the Interservice Legal Education Review

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

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

initiatives and opportunities for cross-training, and to increase

cooperation and efficiency in the training of legal personnel within the

Department of Defense.

5
Academic Programs. NJS has five "core" courses, each containing

substantial blocks of instruction relating to military justice and

operation of the UCMJ. These courses are:

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

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

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

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

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

certified in accordance with Article 27(b), UCMJ. Fiscal year 2001

graduates:

Navy 113

Marine Corps 65

Coast Guard 15

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

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

the Legalman rating. In fiscal year 2001, the course consisted of two

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

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

Fiscal year 2001 graduates: 91

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

This four-day course is taught in Newport, Rhode Island, and other areas of

Fleet and Fleet Marine Force concentration. In fiscal year 2001, the

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

senior officers in the execution of their legal responsibilities of

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

punishment and court-martial procedures. Fiscal year 2001 participants in

SOC:

Navy 475

Marine Corps 157

Coast Guard 1

Civilian 3

Air Force 2

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

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

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

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

6
paygrades 0-1 to 0-3) to assume legal duties in their respective commands.

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

San Diego, California, and Norfolk, Virginia. Fiscal year 2001 legal

officers trained:

Navy 408

Marine Corps 91

Coast Guard 7

Civilian 4

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

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

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

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

preparation of legal forms and reports, service record entries, post-mast

and post court-martial procedures. In fiscal year 2001, the course was

offered 19 times at Newport, Rhode Island, San Diego, California, and

Norfolk, Virginia. Fiscal year 2001 participants:

Navy 290

Marine Corps 5

Civilian 2

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

legal education programs throughout the fiscal year that contained detailed

instructions relating to the operation of the UCMJ. These included:

Officer Courses Length

Reserve Judge Advocate Course Two weeks

Staff Judge Advocate Course Two weeks

Capital Litigation Course Three days

(Separate offerings for Prosecution and Defense)

Intermediate Trial Advocacy Course One week

Advanced Trial Advocacy Course One week

Coast Guard Law Specialist Course One week

Reserve JAGC Military Law Update Workshops 2 1⁄2 days

Computer Crimes Two days

National College of District Attorneys Course One week

Advanced Staff Judge Advocate Course One week

Law of Military Operations Two weeks

Staff Judge Advocate Environmental Law Three days

Legal Assistance Manager's Workshop Two days

Computer Crimes Two days

7
Estate Planning Three days

SOAC Course Four days

Continuing Legal Education Two days

Enlisted Courses Length

Reserve Legalman Course Two weeks

Legalman Research and Drafting Course One week

Legalman Legal Writing One week

Military Justice Course for the Staff Judge

 Advocate/Command Judge Advocate/Shipboard LN Two weeks

NLSO/TSO Legalman Course Three days

Coast Guard Legal Clerk Course Two weeks

Senior Legalman Course Three days

Advanced Legal Specialist Two weeks

Senior Enlisted Leadership Three days

International Programs. In fiscal year 1998, NJS introduced the Legal

Considerations for Peacekeeping and Military Operations Course. In fiscal

year 2001, 61 students from 23 countries attended the Fall and Spring

offerings of this five-week resident course held in Newport, Rhode Island.

The course covers topics including International Law, UN Organizations, UN

Charter, Regional Organizations, Humanitarian Relief Organizations, NonGovernmental Organizations, Law of Armed Conflict, Rules of Engagement,

Status of Forces Agreements, National Policy for Peace Operations, Legal

Issues Regarding Demining and Preventive Diplomacy. The students hear from

notable guest speakers, engage in interactive group problems and take field

trips to Washington, D.C. and UN Headquarters in New York City. In the

past three years, 264 students have completed the course.

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

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

materials directed by higher authorities. NJS will be publishing Volume 48

of the Naval Law Review which will contain several articles related to

Military Justice, Operational and Environmental Law, and Legal Assistance.

MARINE CORPS ACTIVITIES

There are approximately 399 active-duty judge advocates and 450

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

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

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

deployment throughout the world. Our drilling reserve judge advocate

community provides substantial support to each of our offices. This

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

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

8
variety of missions. They work in the military criminal justice system as

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

or appellate government counsel in criminal cases of all descriptions.

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

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

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

adoptions, and citizenship cases. Marine lawyers also advise commanders

during military operations, reviewing military operations plans and

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

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

of practice include environmental law, civil law, contract law,

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

because Marine Corps judge advocates are unrestricted line officers, many

serve in non-legal billets. For example, this year alone has seen Marine

judge advocates serving as; Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Security

Forces Company, Kings Bay, Georgia; Commanding Officer, H&S Battalion,

Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, California; Commanding Officer, H&S

Battalion, Marine Corps Base, Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii; and Commanding Officer,

Military Entrance Processing Station, Des Moines, Iowa.

We access 45 judge advocates a year from civilian law schools and

private practice, in addition to the 10 judge advocates that are lateral

transfers from other Marine Corps occupational fields via the Law Education

Program. We continue to have more applicants than openings and are able to

use a board process to screen all applicants to ensure the highest quality.

Applicants come from diverse backgrounds but can generally be described as

coming from top-tier ABA accredited law schools. They have higher than

average LSAT scores and have successfully completed the rigorous Marine

Corps Officer Candidate Course training program. The process of becoming a

Marine Corps judge advocate is three-fold. First, eligible applicants must

attend Officer Candidate School in Quantico, VA. This strenuous ten-week

course is designed to test a candidate’s leadership and physical abilities.

Successful completion leads to a commission as a Second Lieutenant.

Second, all Marine Corps officers attend the Basic School. Unlike our

sister services, Marine Corps officers are unrestricted line officers – you

may have heard the phrase “every Marine a rifleman.” The Basic School is a

rigorous, 6 month program that provides each lieutenant the foundation to

be an infantry platoon commander. Finally, each judge advocate must

complete the Basic Lawyer Course at the Naval Justice School in Newport,

RI. Successful completion of the Basic Lawyer Course culminates in

designation as a judge advocate. Upon reporting to their commands, various

continuing legal education training opportunities are available to include

command and HQMC sponsored programs. Currently, training opportunities are

available at each of the service judge advocate schools. Additionally,

various civilian continuing legal education opportunities are provided for

9
judge advocates. Approximately twelve judge advocates each year are

selected for advanced (LL.M.) training at civilian law schools and The

Judge Advocate General’s School of the U.S. Army. Additionally, each year

five to six judge advocates attend a military specific training course such

as Amphibious Warfare School, Command and Staff College, or War College.

Our warrant officer and enlisted members also undergo a significant

training regime. Currently, 8 Marines are enrolled in a paralegal program

with Coastline Community College and each year 30 Marines attend the Legal

Services Specialist Mid-Career Course at Naval Justice School.

At the direction of the Commandant, the Judge Advocate Division has

been working with the Manpower and Plans & Resources Divisions on an

implementation plan for Judge Advocate Continuation Pay (renamed Law School

Debt Subsidy, or LSDS). The Manpower Division has proposed payments to

judge advocates that have reached career status and finished their initial

service obligation. Many details of the implementation plan have yet to be

worked out. Current issues include the amount of payments, timing of

payments and which officers are eligible. The Judge Advocate Division

continues to work with Manpower to finalize the LSDS program.

In July 2001, the President of the United States nominated Colonel

Kevin Sandkuhler, as the next Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant.

Colonel. Sandkuhler replaced Brigadier General Joseph Composto who

recently took over as Commanding General of Marine Corps Base Quantico.

After his confirmation by the Senate, Colonel Sandkuhler was promoted to

the rank of Brigadier General on 5 October 2001.

DONALD J. GUTER

Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy

10
APPENDIX - U.S. NAVY/MARINE CORPS MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Report Period: FY 2001

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons)

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/

DECREASE (-) OVER

LAST REPORT

GENERAL 481 454 27 +12%

BCD SPECIAL 2264 2222 42 -5%

NON-BCD SPECIAL 0 0 0 0%

SUMMARY 2103 2074 29 +11%

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT +3%

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 114

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 196

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( SA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 1627

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 317

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1605

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 22

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE U.S. NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL

 APPEALS

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 1881

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 466

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1415

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 1928

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 333

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1595

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 1726

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 246

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1480

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 2083

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 555

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 1528

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD +11%

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

 U.S. NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA)

NUMBER 1944

PERCENTAGE 100%

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

 (CAAF)

PERCENTAGE OF CCA-REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 136 8%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -8%

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 14 10%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -13%

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CCA .8%

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD -30%

Page 1 of 2
APPENDIX - U.S. NAVY/MARINE CORPS MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS - CONT’D

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 8

RECEIVED 20

DISPOSED OF 14

 GRANTED 0

 DENIED 14

 NO JURISDICTION 0

 WITHDRAWN 0

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 14

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 397

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 2147

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 84

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 117

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 96

PART 10 – STRENGTH

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 553,430

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ)

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 35021

RATE PER 1,000 63.3

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD +18.3%

Page 2 of 2
SECTION 5

REPORT OF THE

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR FORCE
REPORT OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE AIR FORCE

OCTOBER 1, 2000 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2001

THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

During fiscal year 2001, the Court rendered over 560 decisions. This

represents an increase of over 43% from fiscal year 2000.

For over 50 years, since before the adoption of the Uniform Code of

Military Justice, the service courts of criminal appeals (then boards of

review) have applied a beyond a reasonable doubt standard in reviewing the

factual sufficiency of an appellant’s conviction. The Court of Military

Appeals agreed that this was the appropriate standard. “For factual

sufficiency, the test is whether, after weighing the evidence in the record

of trial and making allowances for not having personally observed the

witnesses, the members of the [courts of criminal appeals] are themselves

convinced of the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States

v. Turner, 25 MJ 324, 325 (CMA 1987). In United States v. Washington, 54

MJ 936, 940-41 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2001), we noted that this standard of

review conflicted with the expressed intent of Congress. Congress intended

the courts of criminal appeals to affirm the factual sufficiency of an

accused’s conviction if it “conforms to the weight of the evidence.” Id.

at 940 (citing S. Rep. No. 81-486, at 28 (1949); H.R. Rep. No. 81-491, at

31-32 (1949)). Washington is currently on appeal at the United States

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

The Court continued its “Project Outreach” program, hearing oral

arguments at the United States Air Force Academy, Colorado, Maxwell AFB,

Alabama, Andrews AFB, Maryland, and the Howard University School of Law,

Washington, District of Columbia.

USAF JUDICIARY ORGANIZATION

The USAF Judiciary Directorate is responsible for overseeing the

administration of military justice, from nonjudicial punishment proceedings

to the appellate review of courts-martial, throughout the United States Air

Force. Additionally, the Directorate has the staff responsibility of the

Air Force Legal Services Agency in all military justice matters which arise

in connection with programs, special projects, studies and inquiries

generated by the Department of Defense, Headquarters USAF, members of

Congress and various agencies. The Judiciary Directorate consists of the

Trial Judiciary Division, Government Trial and Appellate Counsel Division,

Appellate Defense Division, Trial Defense Division, Military Justice

Division, and the Clemency, Corrections and Officer Review Division.
 This year marked the end of commemorations celebrating the 50th

anniversary of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The

commemorative events included a very successful symposium, featuring

retrospectives from several former Judge Advocate Generals of the Air Force

who helped guide the development and implementation of the UCMJ. The

symposium was hosted and sponsored by the Air Force Judge Advocate General

School and videotapes of the symposium are available from that institution.

In addition, the Air Force produced a videotape celebrating the UCMJ's

anniversary. The videotape traces the history of the American military

justice system, explains the military justice process and compares it with

the criminal justice system in today's U.S. district courts. The video

debuted at the June 2001 meeting of the UCMJ Code Committee and has been

distributed to the other services and throughout the Air Force.

TRIAL JUDICIARY

The Air Force Trial Judiciary had an average of 21 active duty trial

judges, seven reserve trial judges, 10 noncommissioned officers and a

civilian employee court reporter assigned throughout five judiciary

circuits worldwide. In September 2001, the court reporter was reassigned

to 11 WG/JA, Bolling AFB, D.C. The Chief Trial Judge, his military judge

assistant and one noncommissioned officer are assigned to the Trial

Judiciary headquarters. The military judges’ duties include: presiding

over all general and special courts-martial tried in the United States Air

Force; serving as investigating officers under Article 32, UCMJ; legal

advisors for officer discharge boards and other administrative boards;

hearing officers in parole violation hearings; and presiding at public

hearings held to consider draft environmental impact statements. During

this fiscal year, military judges averaged approximately 107 days on

temporary duty to perform these functions at locations other than their

bases of assignment.

The Chief Trial Judge made supervisory visits to all three CONUS

circuits and both of the overseas circuits to review workload and

facilities. The Trial Judiciary has a Website on the Internet that is

currently being improved for trial judges.

The Twenty-Seventh Interservice Military Judges’ Seminar was

conducted by the Trial Judiciary at The Air Force Judge Advocate General

School, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, from 23-27 April 2001. This seminar was

attended by 109 military judges from the trial judiciaries of the Army,

Navy, Maine Corps, Coast Guard, and the Air Force. The Chief Military

Judge of the Canadian Armed Forces also attended. Guest speakers included

The Honorable Andre Davis, U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the

District of Maryland, Professor Lee Schinasi, Honorable Shelby Highsmith,

U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of

2
Florida, Major General William A. Moorman, The Judge Advocate General of

the Air Force, Mr. Francis A. Gilligan, Senior Legal Advisor, U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Armed Forces, Mr. Karl E. Schneider, Deputy Assistant

Secretary, Army Review Boards and Col James Young, Chief Judge, Air Force

Court of Criminal Appeals.

The Chief Trial Judge attended the last week of the Military Judge’s

Course conducted by The Army Judge Advocate General School in

Charlottesville, Virginia, from 7-25 May 2001. In June, the Chief Trial

Judge gave a presentation to new Staff Judge Advocates at the Staff Judge

Advocate Course, Maxwell AFB, AL, and served as a seminar leader for a

week. In July 2001, three active duty judges attended the Criminal

Evidence Course put on by the National Judicial College (NJC) at its Reno,

Nevada campus. In August, the Chief Trial Judge and one active duty judge

attended the Computer Course for Judges conducted by the NJC in Reno,

Nevada, while another military judge attended the Constitution Law Course

at the NJC.

Judge Murnane, the Chief Military Judge for the European Circuit

attended the annual meeting of the American Bar Association in Chicago, IL,

from 2-6 August 2001. She serves as the Chair of the Military Courts

Committee, National Conference of Special Court Judges, Judicial Division,

American Bar Association. The interactions with civilian judicial peers

were extremely valuable. The liaison for the National Judicial College

approached her and suggested that a military faculty member would be a

welcome addition to the National Judicial College faculty. This would

increase civilian exposure to the military justice section and improve

judicial understanding of the UCMJ and its function.

GOVERNMENT TRIAL & APPELLATE COUNSEL DIVISION

In 2001, the Chief, Trial and Appellate Government Counsel Division

and eight appellate counsel attended the Criminal Law New Developments

Course at the Army Judge Advocate General School. This course covered the

latest military cases in all significant areas of criminal law. In

addition to providing new appellate counsel an update in the most recent

criminal law developments, it was an opportunity for both appellate counsel

and trial counsel to spend several hours together and discuss ways to

better serve the base legal offices. Also, in June 2001, seven appellate

counsel attended the Military Appellate Advocacy Symposium, sponsored by

the Judge Advocate’s Association at the Catholic University School of Law.

The symposium provided current information on appellate issues and guidance

on appellate practice.

3
During the year, three appellate government counsel provided in-depth

training at the Military Justice Administration Workshop (MJAW) conducted

at the Air Force Judge Advocate General School (AFJAGS), Maxwell AFB,

Alabama.

Appellate government counsel also prepared and provided an appellate

update on USCAAF and AFCCA decisions and trends in case law for five trial

counsel workshops at each of the circuits. Additionally, appellate

government counsel provided instruction on a myriad of military justice

topics at the Trial and Defense Advocacy Course in April and the Advanced

Trial and Defense Advocacy Course in May 2001.

Appellate government counsel have contributed to “Project Outreach,”

sponsored by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the Air Force

Court of Criminal Appeals, by conducting oral arguments before audiences at

the United States Air Force Academy, the Air Force Judge Advocate General

School, St. Mary’s School of Law, San Antonio, Texas, and at the Texas

Supreme Court, Austin, Texas, educating personnel about the fairness and

professionalism of the military justice system.

Appellate counsel supplemented the Division’s web site with the

quarterly additions of the Appellate Update, Advocacy Continuing Education

(ACE) newsletters, and the 2001 Trial Counsel Deskbook. Easy access to

these materials enhances the briefings provided by appellate government

counsel at the Trial and Defense Advocacy Course and the Advanced Trial

Advocacy Course.

Currently, there are ten reserve judge advocates assigned as

appellate government counsel. They continue to provide superb support,

greatly assisting the Trial and Appellate Government Counsel Division in

carrying out its mission. In addition to preparing written briefs, six of

the reserve counsel presented oral argument before the Air Force Court of

Criminal Appeals or the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces during the

fiscal year.

A summary of Air Force appellate practice follows:

AFCCA FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

 Briefs Filed 434 320 230 151 203

 Cases Argued 22 10 11 19 20

USCAAF FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

 Briefs Filed 85 48 29 23 46

 Cases Argued 58 59 27 28 32

4
SUPREME COURT FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

 Petition Waivers

 Filed 15 17 2 1 1

 Briefs Filed 0 0 0 0 0

CIRCUIT TRIAL COUNSEL

The manning authorizations for the fiscal year included 17 Circuit

Trial Counsel (CTC) at three circuit offices in CONUS, while four CTCs

cover the Pacific and European theaters, two per theater. During fiscal

year 2001, Circuit Trial Counsel tried 279 general courts-martial or 58% of

all general courts-martial. In addition, Circuit Trial Counsel tried 50

special courts-martial. Several CTCs attended the Criminal Law New

Developments Course at the Army JAG School in Charlottesville, Virginia.

The CTCs in all five judicial circuits conducted workshops for base-level

prosecutors. Circuit Trial Counsel also utilize their talents by teaching

as adjunct instructors at the Trial and Defense Advocacy Course and the

Advanced Trial and Defense Advocacy Course at the Air Force Judge Advocate

General School.

APPELLATE DEFENSE DIVISION

Training of our appellate defense counsel remains one of the

division’s highest priorities. This training includes attending civilian

appellate advocacy seminars sponsored by the National Legal Aid and

Defender Association, the Judge Advocate’s Association, and Law Prose.

Appellate defense counsel served as adjunct faculty members in the

Advanced Trial Advocacy Course and the Trial and Defense Advocacy Course at

the Air Force Judge Advocate General School at Maxwell AFB, AL.

Appellate defense counsel continued to support trial defense counsel

in the field by actively participating in circuit defense counsel

workshops. Counsel also briefed the field defense practitioners on new

appellate developments in military criminal law.

The Law Office Manager spoke at the Eastern, Western, and European

Circuit Defense Paralegal Workshops. The briefings highlighted the

differing roles of trial defense and appellate defense paralegals.

Appellate defense counsel contributed to “Project Outreach” sponsored

by the AFCCA and CAAF by participating in oral arguments before audiences

at the Texas Supreme Court in Austin, TX; Saint Mary’s University in San

Antonio, TX; and the Air Force Judge Advocate General School at Maxwell

AFB, AL. “Project Outreach” helps educate personnel involved in civilian

legal practice about the fairness and professionalism of the military

justice system.

5
The following figures reflect the division’s workload over fiscal

year 2001:

AFCCA FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

 Briefs Filed 505 603 507 399 481

 Cases Argued 22 10 9 15 14

USCAAF FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

 Supplements to

 Petitions 527 424 416 330 457

 Grants Briefs 85 40 26 28 31

 Oral Arguments 58 59 23 25 31

SUPREME COURT FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

 Petition 13 17 0 1 6

 Briefs in Opposition 2 1 0 0 0

 Briefs on the Merits 1 0 0 0 0

TRIAL DEFENSE DIVISION

The Trial Defense Division is responsible for providing all trial

defense services within the Air Force through Area Defense Counsel (ADC),

Defense Paralegals (DP), Circuit Defense Counsel (CDC), and Chief Circuit

Defense Counsel (CCDC). These personnel report to the Chief, Trial Defense

Division (JAJD), who reports to the Director, United States Air Force

Judiciary (JAJ). The Chief, Trial Defense Division is assisted by the

Deputy Chief and Law Office Manager.

The Division is manned with 81 ADCs stationed at 71 bases worldwide.

They are assisted by 72 DPs. The Division has 21 CDCs and 5 CCDCs. The

CCDCs, along with all but four of the CDCs, are stationed at the circuit

offices located at Bolling AFB, DC; Randolph AFB, TX; Travis AFB, CA;

Ramstein AB, Germany; and Yokota AB, Japan. A single defense paralegal

superintendent is assigned to each of the three CONUS circuits and the

European Circuit.

The continuing success of the Air Force’s Area Defense Counsel

Program is largely attributable to its independence and its energized

personnel. To ensure the best representation for Air Force clients,

training remains the division’s top priority. The Chief, Trial Defense

Division and all five CCDCs attended the Criminal Law New Developments

Course at the Army Judge Advocate School. On a continuing basis, each CCDC

and CDC provides on-the-job training and mentoring to ADCs. Newly

6
appointed defense counsel receive formal training at the Area Defense

Counsel Orientation and at annual workshops conducted by each Circuit.

Each circuit conducts DP training at annual DP workshops. In addition, the

division ensured each ADC attended the Trial and Defense Advocacy Course

and that all CDCs attended the Advanced Trial Advocacy Course. The

Division provided adjunct faculty members for these two courses held at the

Air Force Judge Advocate General School, Maxwell AFB, AL.

MILITARY JUSTICE DIVISION

The Military Justice Division prepares opinions and policy positions

for The Judge Advocate General and for the Air Force Board for Correction

of Military Records. They also assemble reports on military justice issues

requested by the White House, Congress, DoD and the Air Staff. The

division represents the Air Force on the DoD Joint Service Committee (JSC)

on Military Justice. The division also provided representatives to all

interservice activities involving military justice and support for the Code

Committee.

During the course of the year, the Military Justice Division serves

as the action agency for the review of military justice issues on

applications submitted to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military

Records. The division provided 102 formal opinions concerning such

applications. They also received 175 inquires in specific cases requiring

either formal written replies or telephonic replies to senior officials,

including the President and members of Congress. The Military Justice

Division also reviewed 66 records of trial for review under Article 69a,

UCMJ, seven records under Article 69b, UCMJ, and one record under Article

73, UCMJ.

The Division presented the fifth annual Military Justice

Administration Workshop at the Air Force Judge Advocate General School.

Over 100 judge advocates and paralegals attended the “back to basics” oneweek workshop. Additionally, during the past year, the Division chief was

the team chief for two military justice seminars conducted by the Defense

Institute of International Legal Studies, one in South Africa and one in

Mali.

CLEMENCY, CORRECTIONS AND OFFICER REVIEW DIVISION

The Division's primary responsibilities continue to be to: 1)

recommend appropriate disposition of statutorily required sentence review

actions by the Secretary of the Air Force in officer and cadet dismissal

cases; 2) recommend action by The Judge Advocate General or the Secretary

of the Air Force, as appropriate, to effect statutorily authorized clemency

for members of the Air Force under court-martial sentence; 3) represent The

Judge Advocate General on the Air Force Clemency and Parole Board; 4) make

7
recommendations for the Secretary of the Air Force to the Attorney General

on Presidential Pardon applications by court-martialed Air Force members;

and 5) advise The Judge Advocate General and the Security Forces Center on

corrections issues.

At the end of fiscal year 2001, 474 Air Force personnel were in

confinement. Of those, 90 inmates were in long-term confinement at the

United States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB), Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and

106 were serving time in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) system. A

total of nine inmates were enrolled in the Air Force Return-to-Duty

Rehabilitation (RTDR) Program during this period, with two graduating and

being returned to duty. The number of Air Force inmates on parole at the

end of fiscal year 2001 was 130, an 8 percent increase from last fiscal

year.

AIR FORCE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL SCHOOL

The Air Force Judge Advocate General (AFJAG) School is one of eight

professional continuing education schools in Air University's Ira C. Eaker

College for Professional Development at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.

The AFJAG School is located in The William L. Dickinson Law Center, a

56,000 square foot academic facility dedicated in 1993. The Dickinson Law

Center also houses the David C. Morehouse Center for Paralegal Studies and

the Air Force Legal Information Services Division (JAS). The AFJAG School

provides legal education and training to attorneys and paralegals from all

military services, other federal agencies, and many foreign countries. The

AFJAG School faculty provides instruction at other Air University schools

and colleges and at other schools and courses throughout the Department of

Defense. The AFJAG School publishes The Reporter, The Air Force Law Review

and The Military Commander and the Law. The AFJAG School maintains AFJAG

Department liaison with civilian professional organizations, law schools,

and states requiring continuing legal education.

AFJAG School Courses

The AFJAG School conducted 43 classes (some courses are held more

than once a year) in Fiscal Year 2001 for more than 4,000 students.

Courses, seminars, and workshops conducted at the AFJAG School included:

Accident Investigation Board Legal Advisor

Advanced Environmental Law

Advanced Labor and Employment Law

Advanced Trial Advocacy

Claims and Tort Litigation

Deployed Air Reserve Components Operations and Law

Deployed Fiscal Law and Contingency Contracting

8
Environmental Law

Environmental Law Update

Federal Employee Labor Law

Federal Income Tax Law

Information Operations Law

International Law

Judge Advocate Staff Officer

Law Office Manager

Legal Aspects of Information Operations

Military Judges

Military Justice Administration

Negotiation and Appropriate Dispute Resolution

Operations Law

Paralegal Apprentice

Paralegal Craftsman

Reserve Forces Judge Advocate

Reserve Forces Paralegal

Staff Judge Advocate

Trial and Defense Advocacy

Off-Site Courses

The AFJAG School conducted four “Surveys of the Law” for judge

advocates and paralegals in the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard.

The surveys were conducted at a civilian conference facility in Denver,

Colorado. The surveys provide concise legal updates and extensive reviews

of recent developments in military justice. During Fiscal Year 2001, over

460 Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard judge advocates and paralegals

attended a Survey of the Law.

Distance Learning (DL) Courses

The AFJAG School presents two courses, the Air Force Systems and

Logistics Contracting Course and the Fiscal Law Course, by live satellite

broadcast (one-way video and two-way audio) to more than 50 Air Force and

Army sites throughout the United States. More than 1,550 personnel

participated in DL courses in Fiscal Year 2001.

Outside Teaching

In addition to teaching in AFJAG School courses, the AFJAG School

faculty provides over 1,240 hours of instruction each year on a wide range

of legal topics in other colleges, schools, and courses within Air

University. These include: Air War College; Air Command and Staff

College; Squadron Officer School; College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research,

and Education; School of Advanced Airpower Studies; International Officer

9
School; Officer Training School; Senior Noncommissioned Officer Academy;

USAF First Sergeant Academy; Professional Military Comptroller School;

Group Commanders' Course; Wing Commanders’ Seminar; Advanced Personnel

Officer Course; and Chaplain Orientation Course. Additionally, the faculty

expends approximately 1,400 hours annually teaching in a variety of other

schools, courses, and conferences throughout the world. In Fiscal Year

2001 this included: Inter-American Air Force Academy; Air National GuardUnited Nations Peace Operations Symposium; USAF Special Operations School;

U.S. Army Judge Advocate General School; Air Force Special Operations

Command Reserve Conference; Canadian Defense Forces Law of Armed Conflict

Conference; PACAF Operations Law Conference; Air Force Reserve Command

Staff Judge Advocate Conference; and EUCOM Joint Contact Team Program

(Republic of Georgia).

The AFJAG School participates in the Expanded International Military

Education and Training (E-IMET) program, one of several Security Assistance

Programs mandated by Congress. The program promotes U.S. foreign policy

goals as established in the Foreign Assistance Act. The E-IMET Program

involves joint U.S. military training teams teaching human rights, military

justice, civilian control of the military, the law of armed conflict, rules

of engagement, and general democratic principles in countries designated as

emerging democracies. Faculty from the AFJAG School participated in two EIMET missions in Fiscal Year 2001, one for Jordan and one for Ecuador. The

faculty also participates in the Subject Matter Expert Exchange (SMEE)

program. This is an Air Force program for a smaller, more focused audience

than the E-IMET program. Air Force judge advocates meet and consult with

their counterparts from Latin American countries to discuss military legal

topics and practices. In Fiscal Year 2001, an AFJAG School faculty member

participated in a SMEE in Bolivia.

Publications

Each year the AFJAG School publishes two issues of The Air Force Law

Review, a professional legal journal consisting of articles of interest to

Air Force judge advocates, civilian attorney advisors, and others with an

interest in military law. The Law Review is a scholarly legal publication

that encourages candid discussion of relevant legislative, administrative,

and judicial developments. Additionally, four issues of The Reporter, the

AFJAG Department's quarterly legal publication containing articles of

general interest, were distributed. The AFJAG School continues to

distribute large quantities of its most popular publication, The Military

Commander and the Law, a 620+ page compendium of concise legal papers

addressing issues confronting today’s military commanders. The printed

version was updated in 2000 and more than 25,000 copies were distributed

worldwide. An electronic version is available on-line at

http://milcom.jag.af.mil and is updated every six months.

10
The AFJAG School prepared and released two legal education CD-ROMs in

Fiscal Year 2001. The first is entitled A Primer on Club Drugs and

includes a presentation on the proliferation of “club drugs” by Special

Agent Keith M. Givens from the Air Force Office of Special Investigations

along with his lecture slides, a research paper written by Special Agent

Givens, and links to on-line resources on the topic. Staff Judge Advocates

attending the 2001 SJA Course and commanders attending Group Commanders’

Courses and Wing Commanders’ Seminars received copies of the CD.

Additionally, dozens of base legal offices requested and received copies as

well. The second CD is entitled JASOC Electives. New judge advocates

attending the Judge Advocate Staff Officer Course (JASOC) attend a one-day

elective in one of four areas: military justice administration, contracts

and fiscal law, environmental law, or labor law. By attending one elective

a student misses the other three. All four of the electives, plus an

additional presentation and materials on claims and tort litigation, were

recorded and placed on CDs. Each student receives a CD giving him or her

access to all the information presented on elective day.

LEGAL INFORMATION SERVICES

During fiscal year 2001, JAS continued to exploit the forcemultiplying power of information technology by launching three new software

initiatives while continuing to upgrade and refine several of its existing

platforms and services.

Most notable among the new initiatives, JAS developed dynamic webbased Roster programs for the active duty, reserve, and guard troops.

These programs provide our leadership with unprecedented real-time

information about subordinates and further, allow these same leaders the

freedom to create and run instantaneous queries when special need

assignments arise.

A second initiative, the Judge Advocate Management Information System

(JAMIS), provides a macro view of the various legal offices. In one

screen, JAMIS sets forth each major command, its subordinate legal offices,

and provides easy to use links to each office’s roster, website, and

DocuShare collection.

Additionally, JAS acted as the JAG Department liaison in developing

the new AF Portal website. The Portal is designed to be a one-stop shop

for all USAF services such as finance, personnel, legal, etc. In this

role, JAS developed the Air Force Law Center, which will provide all “.mil”

users with access to limited legal information such as office location,

hours, services, newsletters, and commonly used forms.

11
In the area of upgrades and refinements, the Armed Forces Claims

Information Management System (AFCIMS) was the primary focus. Some of the

many improvements include: enhanced Web Host AFCIMS Reports and Claims

Management Summary Reports, which now show more data in a more easily

understood format; a new SJA/LOM Executive Summary Report that reviews

claim statistics and numbers on a 90-day trend and on a comparison with the

MAJCOM and Air Force level; and a new TJAG Art VI report which provides

detailed information for each base.

Further, JAS has begun the process of migrating AFCIMS to an entirely

web-based design. This improvement will negate the current requirement to

install and configure software on individual computers at each claims

office, avoid concerns about the security of using file transfer protocol

(ftp) to send updates, and increase the ease and reliability of uploading

data in the future.

Finally, as if anticipating future needs, JAS spent considerable time

and money upgrading its operational resources. Fifteen new deployment kits

were purchased and prepared for deployment, the JAGFLAG Deployment CD-ROMs

were supplemented with a third CD containing international agreements, and

over 6000 new international agreements were added to the unclassified and

SIPRNET International Agreements Database System (INADS).

PERSONNEL

As of 30 September 2001, there were 1328 judge advocates on duty.

Company grade officers (lieutenants and captains) made up approximately

half of that number (658). Nearly 25% were majors (325) and 16% were

lieutenant colonels (217). Nine percent of the Department were colonels

(123) and above, including two major generals and three brigadier generals.

WILLIAM A. MOORMAN

Major General, USAF

The Judge Advocate General

12
APPENDIX - U. S. AIR FORCE MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Report Period: FISCAL YEAR 2001

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons)

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/

DECREASE (-) OVER

LAST REPORT

GENERAL 490 463 27 +10.61%

BCD SPECIAL 340 161 +5.890%

NON-BCD SPECIAL [A] 157 22

SUMMARY 126 125 1 -9.35%

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT +6.17%

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 43

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 289

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL ( CA LEVEL)

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 154

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 358

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 150

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 73

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

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 418

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [B]

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [B]

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 508

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL [B]

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL [B]

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 563

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 361

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD (389:563) +44.73%

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE 

 U.S. AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA)

NUMBER 500

PERCENTAGE 98.43%

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

 (CAAF)

PERCENTAGE OF AFCCA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO USCAAF (423/563) 75.13%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -10.99%

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED (42/423) 10.00%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -1.04%

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CCA (42/563) 7.46%

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD (335:423) +26.27%

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

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 0

RECEIVED 6

DISPOSED OF 0

 GRANTED 0

 DENIED 6

 NO JURISDICTION 0

 WITHDRAWN 0

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 2

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE 431

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 277

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 154

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS 399

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 213

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 186

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 28

PART 10 – STRENGTH

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 348,921

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ)

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 8607

RATE PER 1,000 24.49

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD +0.18%

EXPLANATORY NOTES

 

[A] The Air Force does not convene non-BCD SPCMs. Of the 340 BCD SPCMs tried, there were 161 convictions with a

 BCD adjudged, 157 convictions without a BCD adjudged and 22 acquittals.

[B] GCM and SPCM were not tracked separately.

Page 2 of 2
SECTION 6

REPORT OF THE

CHIEF COUNSEL OF THE COAST GUARD
REPORT OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL OF THE U. S. COAST GUARD

October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001

NOTE: All statistics are based on the number of court-martial records

received and filed at Coast Guard Headquarters during fiscal year 2001 and,

where indicated, records received during each of the four preceding fiscal

years. The number of court-martial cases varies widely from year to year,

in part, based on the small size of the Coast Guard.

Fiscal Year 01 00 99 98 97

General Courts-Martial 15 10 6 18 6

Special Courts-Martial 17 23 17 21 9

Summary Courts-Martial 18 11 3 8 10

Total 50 44 26 47 25

COURTS-MARTIAL

Attorney counsel and military judges were detailed to all special

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

Judge, a full-time general courts-martial judge. When the Chief Trial

Judge was unavailable, military judges with other primary duties were used

for special courts-martial. Control of the detail of judges is centrally

exercised by the Chief Trial Judge and all requests were timely met.

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

Ten of the fifteen accused tried by general courts-martial this fiscal

year were tried by military judge alone. Four elected to be tried by

general courts-martial that included enlisted members, and one elected

officer members. All fifteen general courts-martial resulted in

convictions and of the accused whose charges were referred to general

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

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

(pay grades E-7 through E-9), and none were commissioned officers (W-1

through O-9). Two of the accused tried by general courts-martial pled

guilty to all charges and specifications.

The following table summarizes the sentences adjudged in general

courts-martial tried by military judge alone (ten convictions):

Sentence Cases Imposed

dishonorable discharge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

bad conduct discharge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6

confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -10

hard labor without confinement- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

reduction in pay-grade - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9

fined (total $900.00) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
restriction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

forfeiture of all pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

partial forfeiture of pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - - 0

The following table summarizes the sentences adjudged in general

courts-martial tried by members (five convictions).

Sentence Cases Imposed

dishonorable discharge- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

bad-conduct discharge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4

hard labor without confinement- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

reduction in pay-grade - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4

fined (total $0.00) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

restriction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

forfeiture of all pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

partial forfeiture of pay and allowances - - - - - - - - - - - 1

The following table compares the frequency of imposition of the four

most common punishments imposed at general courts-martial in the past five

fiscal years.

 Reduction Punitive

 Number of in Discharge/

FY Convictions Forfeitures Confinement Pay-Grade Dismissal

01 15 4 (27%) 14 (93%) 13 (87%) 10 (67%)

00 9 5 (56%) 7 (78%) 6 (67%) 6 (67%)

99 6 0 (0%) 6 (100%) 6 (100%) 5 (83%)

98 17 5 (29%) 12 (71%) 16 (94%) 11 (65%)

97 6 2 (33%) 4 (67%) 5 (83%) 4 (67%)

The following table shows the distribution of the 277 specifications

referred to general courts-martial in fiscal year 2001.

Violation of the UCMJ, Article No. of Specs.

 80 (attempts) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3

 86 (unauthorized absence) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7

 91 (insubordinate conduct) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

 92 (failure to obey order or regulation) - - - - - - - - - 30

 93 (cruelty and maltreatment) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7

107 (false official statement) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16

120 (rape or carnal knowledge) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5

121 (larceny or wrongful appropriation) - - - - - - - - - - 52

123 (forgery)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26

124 (maiming)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

125 (sodomy) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10

128 (assault)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11

129 (burglary) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

134 (general) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 105

 277

2
Fifteen general courts-martial represent a 50% increase in general

courts-martial records received and filed at Coast Guard Headquarters in FY

2001 over the previous fiscal year. The Coast Guard has averaged 11

general courts-martial per year over the last 5 years with six to eighteen

cases a year. While a 50% increase in general courts-martial in one year

is significant, the total number of general courts-martial is within the

limits of six to eighteen general courts-martial a year experienced in the

last five years.

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

All seventeen accused tried by special courts-martial this fiscal year

were tried by military judge alone. All of the special courts-martial

resulted in convictions and nine accused received a BCD. One accused tried

by special court-martial pled guilty to all charges and specifications.

Ten of the accused whose charges were referred to special courts-martial

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

grades E-4 through E-6), one accused was a chief petty officer (pay grades

E-7 through E-9), and none were commissioned officers (W-1 through O-9).

The following table summarizes the sentences adjudged in the seventeen

special courts-martial all of which were tried by military judge alone.

Sentence Cases Imposed

bad-conduct discharge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9

confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16

hard labor without confinement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

reduction in pay-grade - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12

fined (total $5,000.00) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

restriction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0

partial forfeiture of pay and allowances- - - - - - - - - - - 9

reprimand - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

The following table compares the four sentences imposed most by

special courts-martial in the past five fiscal years.

 Reduction

 Number of in

FY Convictions Forfeitures Confinement Pay-Grade BCD____

01 17 9 (53%) 17 (100%) 12 (71%) 9 (53%)

00 23 8 (35%) 20 (87%) 19 (83%) 10 (43%)

99 17 8 (47%) 15 (88%) 16 (94%) 9 (53%)

98 20 9 (45%) 9 (45%) 17 (85%) 4 (20%)

97 9 4 (44%) 6 (67%) 8 (89%) 5 (56%)

3
The following table shows the distribution of the 167 specifications

referred to special courts-martial in fiscal year 2001.

Violation of the UCMJ, Article No. of Specs.

 78 (accessory after the fact)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

 86 (unauthorized absence)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3

 87 (missing movement)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

 90 (assaulting or willfully disobeying a superior

 commissioned officer) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1

 91 (insubordinate conduct) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5

 92 (failure to obey order or regulation) - - - - - - - - - 42

 93 (cruelty and maltreatment) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9

 95 (resistance, breach of arrest, and escape)- - - - - - - 1

107 (false official statement)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4

109 (property other than military property of United States

 waste, spoilage, or destruction) - - - - - - - - - - - 1

111 (drunken or reckless driving) - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2

112a (wrongful use, possession, etc. of controlled

 substance) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 49

117 (provoking speeches or gestures) - - - - - - - - - - - 2

121 (larceny or wrongful appropriation) - - - - - - - - - - 2

128 (aggravated assault)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26

134 (general) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17

 167

There was a 26% decrease in special courts-martial received and filed

at Coast Guard Headquarters this fiscal year over last fiscal year. Over

the past five years the Coast Guard has averaged seventeen special courtsmartial per year with nine to twenty-three special courts-martial a year.

This decrease in special courts-martial in FY-2001 is offset by the

increase in general courts-martial.

CHIEF COUNSEL ACTION UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

In addition to the required reviews of courts-martial conducted as a

result of petitions filed under Article 66, UCMJ, a review was conducted

under Article 69(a) and (b) of all courts-martial not requiring Article 66

appellate review.

PERSONNEL, ORGANIZATION, AND TRAINING

The Coast Guard has 179 officers designated as law specialists (judge

advocates) serving on active duty of which 138 are serving in legal billets

and 41 are serving in general duty billets. Twenty-one Coast Guard

officers are currently undergoing postgraduate studies in law including one

obtaining an LLM in Environmental Law and twenty will be certified as law

specialists at the successful completion of their studies. Seven students

4
will graduate in 2002 including the one with an LLM in Environmental Law,

seven will graduate in 2003, and seven will graduate in 2004. Sixteen

Coast Guard officers (including five funded postgraduate program studies

and eight direct-commissioned lawyers) completed the Navy Basic Lawyer

Course in Newport, Rhode Island. All have been or are in the process of

becoming certified under article 27(b), UCMJ.

U. S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

The following judges sat on the U.S. Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals

during fiscal year 2001:

 Position Name Sworn-In Departed

 Chief Judge Joseph H. Baum 1 Apr 1985

 Judge Ronald R. Weston 5 Sep 1996 1 Jul 2001(Retired)

 Judge David J. Kantor 1 Jul 1997

 Judge Lane I. McClelland 1 Jul 1997 18 Jan 2001

 Judge William A. Cassels 6 Sep 2000

 Judge Robert W. Bruce 6 Sep 2000

 Judge Gary A. Palmer 19 Apr 2001

 Judge Ronald E. Kilroy 25 July 2001

In addition to the decisional work of the Court, as reflected in

Appendix A, the judges of the Court have been involved in various

professional conferences, committees and seminars during the past fiscal

year.

In the spring of 2001, Judge Weston participated on a panel with

judges from the other service courts of criminal appeals as part of the

two-day Military Appellate Advocacy Symposium at the Catholic University of

America Columbus School of Law.

In May, 2001, Judge Bruce participated in a panel of appellate

military judges at the Military Judge’s Course at the Army Judge Advocate

General School in Charlottesville, VA. The panel provided an opportunity

for the new trial judges to discuss items of interest with sitting

appellate judges.

On 13 and 14 June 2001, the judges of the Court attended the Judicial

Conference of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces at

Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law in Washington, D.C.

On 19 and 20 September 2001, the judges participated in the William

S. Fulton, Jr. Appellate Military Judges Conference and Training Seminar at

the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, D.C. The conference was hosted

by the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals and featured an opening address

5
by Chief Judge Susan J. Crawford. The conference included presentations on

standards of review by Mr. LeRoy F. Foreman, Commissioner to CAAF Judge

H.F. Gierke; ethics by Henry J. Schuelke, III, Esq.; the Art of Appellate

Judging by Judge John J. Farley, III, of the Court of Appeals for Veterans

Claims; the report of the Commission on the 50th Anniversary of the UCMJ by

Elizabeth L. Hillman, Esq., Reporter of the Commission; lessons on judicial

writing by Mr. Stephen V. Armstrong; and overview of recent Supreme Court

opinions by Maj. Gen. William K. Suter, Clerk of the Court; a discussion of

recent military justice opinions by two professors from the Army’s Judge

Advocate General School; and panel discussions on possible bases for

recusal of appellate judges, pro se representation at the appellate level,

and appellate relief for significant post-trial processing delays where no

prejudice has been shown. Chief Judge Baum, Judge Cassels, and Judge Bruce

participated as members of these panels.

Chief Judge Baum served another year as a member of the Rules

Advisory Committee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces,

working on proposed rule changes for that court.

ADDITIONAL MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Appendix A contains the formal Coast Guard military justice statistics

and report for the reporting period and reflects the increase/decrease of

the workload in various categories.

R. F. DUNCAN

Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard

Chief Counsel

6
APPENDIX - U.S. COAST GUARD MILITARY JUSTICE STATISTICS

Report Period: 1 OCTOBER 2000 - 30 SEPTEMBER 2001

PART 1 - BASIC COURTS-MARTIAL STATISTICS (Persons)

TYPE COURT TRIED CONVICTED ACQUITTALS

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/

DECREASE (-) OVER

LAST REPORT

GENERAL 15 15 0 +50%

BCD SPECIAL 17 17 -26%

NON-BCD SPECIAL 0 0 0 UNCHANGED

SUMMARY 18 18 0 +64%

OVERALL RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER LAST REPORT +14%

PART 2 – DISCHARGES APPROVED

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 NUMBER OF DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES 3

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 7

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL

 NUMBER OF BAD-CONDUCT DISCHARGES 9

PART 3 – RECORDS OF TRIAL RECEIVED FOR REVIEW BY JAG

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 9

FOR REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 66 – BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 9

FOR EXAMINATION UNDER ARTICLE 69 – GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 6

PART 4 – WORKLOAD OF THE COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

TOTAL ON HAND BEGINNING OF PERIOD 18

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 12

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 6

REFERRED FOR REVIEW 25

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 16

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 9

TOTAL CASES REVIEWED 24

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 14

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 10

TOTAL PENDING AT CLOSE OF PERIOD 19

 GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 14

 BCD SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 5

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

REVIEWED DURING LAST REPORTING PERIOD

+4%

PART 5 – APPELLATE COUNSEL REQUESTS BEFORE

 U.S. COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (CCA)

NUMBER 25

PERCENTAGE 100%

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

 (CAAF)

PERCENTAGE OF CCA REVIEWED CASES FORWARDED TO CAAF 5/24 21%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD -20%

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PETITIONS GRANTED 3/5 60%

PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS REPORTING PERIOD +131%

PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS GRANTED OF TOTAL CASES REVIEWED BY CGCCA 3/24 13%

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

LAST REPORTING PERIOD +30%

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

PART 7 – APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 69, UCMJ

TOTAL PENDING BEGINNING OF PERIOD 0

RECEIVED 0

DISPOSED OF 0

 GRANTED 0

 DENIED 0

 NO JURISDICTION 0

 WITHDRAWN 0

TOTAL PENDING AT END OF PERIOD 0

PART 8 – ORGANIZATION OF COURTS

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE ALONE

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 10

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 17

TRIALS BY MILITARY JUDGE WITH MEMBERS

GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL 5

SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL 0

PART 9 – COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 138, UCMJ

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS 2

PART 10 – STRENGTH

AVERAGE ACTIVE DUTY STRENGTH 35,647

PART 11 – NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (ARTICLE 15, UCMJ)

NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT IMPOSED 1397

RATE PER 1,000 39.19

RATE OF INCREASE (+)/DECREASE (-) OVER PREVIOUS PERIOD +5.49%

Page 2 of 2