30962 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 94 / Monday, May 15, 2000 / Notices

[FR Doc. 00–12068 Filed 5–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Renewal of 20 Department of Defense

Federal Advisory Committees

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Pub.

L. 92–463, the ‘‘Federal Advisory

Committee Act,’’ notice is hereby given

that the following 20 advisory

committees have been determined to be

in the public interest and have been

renewed:

A. Board of Visitors, National Defense

University.

B. Strategic Advisory Group for the

U.S. Strategic Command.

C. Advisory Group on Electron

Devices.

D. Defense Science Board.

E. Defense Advisory Committee on

Military Personnel Testing.

F. Defense Advisory Committee on

Women in the Services.

G. DoD Wage Committee.

H. National Security Agency Advisory

Board.

I. Armed Forces Epidemiological

Board.

J. Army Science Board.

K. Army Education Advisory

Committee.

L. Chief of Engineers Environmental

Advisory Board.

M. Scientific Advisory Board of the

Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.

N. Board of Advisors to the President,

Naval War College.

O. Board of Advisors to the

Superintendent, Naval Postgraduate

School.

P. Chief of Naval Operations

Executive Panel Advisory Committee.

Q. Naval Research Advisory

Committee.

R. Air University Board of Visitors.

S. Community College of the Air

Force Board of Visitors.

T. U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory

Board.

These committees provide necessary

and valuable advice to the Secretary of

Defense and other senior officials in the

DoD in their respective areas of

expertise. They make important

contributions to DoD efforts in research

and development, education and

training, and various technical program

areas. Some of them are authorized by

statute.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 94 / Monday, May 15, 2000 / Notices 30963

It is a continuing DoD policy to make

every effort to achieve a balanced

membership on all DoD advisory

committees. Each committee is

evaluated in terms of the functional

disciplines, levels of experience,

professional diversity, public and

private association, and similar

characteristics required to ensure a high

degree of balance is obtained.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Contact Jennifer Spaeth, DoD Committee

Management Officer, 703–695–4281.

Dated: May 9, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,

Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00–12064 Filed 5–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Manual for Courts-Martial

AGENCY: Joint Service Committee on

Military Justice (JSC).

ACTION: Notice of proposed amendments

to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United

States, (1998 ed.)

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is

considering recommending changes to

the Manual for Courts-Martial, United

States, (1998 ed.) (MCM). The proposed

changes are the 2000 draft annual

review required by the MCM and DoD

Directive 5500.17, ‘‘Role and

Responsibilities of the Joint Service

Committee (JSC) on Military Justice,’’

May 8, 1996. The proposed changes

concern the rules of procedure

applicable in trials by court-martial.

More specifically, the proposed changes

would: (1) Add references to Military

Rule of Evidence 513, Psychotherapistpatient privilege, in Rule for CourtsMartial (R.C.M.) 701, Discovery; (2)

clarity the analysis accompanying

R.C.M. 707, Speedy trial, in light of

current case law; and (3) clarify R.C.M.

1003 and R.C.M. 1107, governing the

authority of a court-martial to adjudge,

and the convening authority to approve,

the combination of both a fine and

forfeitures at summary and special

courts-martial.

The proposed changes have not been

coordinated within the Department of

Defense under DoD Directive 5500.1,

‘‘Preparation and Processing of

Legislation, Executive Orders,

Proclamations, and Reports and

Comments Thereon,’’ May 21, 1964, and

do not constitute the official position of

the Department of Defense, the Military

Departments, or any other government

agency.

In accordance with paragraph III B 4

of the Internal Organization and

Operating Procedures of the Joint

Service Committee on Military Justice (2

March 2000), the JSC invites members of

the public to suggest changes to the

Manual for Courts-Martial in accordance

with the herein described format.

This notice is provided in accordance

with DoD Directive 5500.17, ‘‘Role and

Responsibilities of the Joint Service

Committee (JSC) on Military Justice,’’

May 8, 1996. This notice is intended

only to improve the internal

management of the Federal Government.

It is not intended to create any right or

benefit, substantive or procedural,

enforceable at law by any party against

the United States, its agencies, its

officers, or any person.

DATES: Comments on the proposed

changes must be received no later than

July 31, 2000, for consideration by the

JSC.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed

changes should be sent to Lt Col

Thomas C. Jaster, U.S. Air Force, Air

Force Legal Services Agency, 112 Luke

Avenue, Room 343, Bolling Air Force

Base, Washington, DC 20332–8000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lt

Col Thomas C. Jaster, U.S. Air Force, Air

Force Legal Services Agency, 112 Luke

Avenue, Room 343, Bolling Air Force

Base, Washington, DC 20332–8000,

(202) 767–1539; FAX (202) 404–8755.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

proposed amendments to the Manual for

Courts-Martial are as follows:

Amend the Discussion following R.C.M.

701(a)(2)(B) to read as follows:

‘‘For specific rules concerning certain

mental examinations of the accused or third

party patients, see R.C.M. 701(f), R.C.M. 706,

Mil. R. Evid. 302 and Mil. R. Evid. 513.’’

Amend R.C.M. 701(b)(4) to read as follows:

‘‘Reports of examination and tests. If the

defense requests disclosure under subsection

(a)(2)(B) of this rule, upon compliance with

such request by the Government, the defense,

on request of trial counsel, shall (except as

provided in R.C.M. 706, Mil. R. Evid. 302 and

Mil. R. Evid. 513) permit the trial counsel to

inspect any results or reports of physical or

mental examinations and of scientific tests or

experiments made in connection with the

particular case, or copies thereof, which are

within the possession, custody, or control of

the defense which the defense intends to

introduce as evidence in the defense case-inchief at trial or which were prepared by a

witness whom the defense intends to call at

trial when the results or reports relate to that

witness’ testimony.’’

Amend the Analysis accompanying R.C.M.

701(b) by inserting the following prior to the

current paragraph:

‘‘2000 Amendment: Subsection (b)(4) was

amended in light of Mil. R. Evid. 513.’’

Amend the analysis accompanying R.C.M.

707(A) by inserting the following paragraph

after the second full paragraph:

‘‘2000 Analysis Amendment: Burton and

its progeny were re-examined in 1993 when

the Court of Military Appeals specifically

overruled Burton and reinstated the earlier

rule from United States v. Tibbs, 15 C.M.A.

350, 35 C.M.R. 322 (1965). United States v.

Kossman, 38 M.J. 258 (C.M.A. 1993). In

Kossman, the Court reinstated the

‘‘reasonable diligence’’ standard in

determining whether the prosecution’s

progress toward trial for a confined accused

was sufficient to satisfy the speedy trial

requirement of Article 10, UCMJ.’’

Amend R.C.M. 1003(b)(3) to read as

follows:

‘‘Fine. Any court-martial may adjudge a

fine in lieu of or in addition to forfeitures.

Special and summary courts-martial may not

adjudge any fine or combination of fine and

forfeitures in excess of the total amount of

forfeitures that may be adjudged in that case.

In order to enforce collection, a fine may be

accompanied by a provision in the sentence

that, in the event the fine is not paid, the

person fined shall, in additional to any

period of confinement adjudged, be further

confined until a fixed period considered an

equivalent punishment to the fine has

expired. The total period of confinement so

adjudged shall not exceed the jurisdictional

limitations of the court-martial;’’

Amend the Discussion accompanying

R.C.M. 1003(b)(3) by adding the following

after the second paragraph:

‘‘Where the sentence adjudged at a special

court-martial includes a fine, see R.C.M.

1107(d)(5) for limitations on convening

authority action on the sentence.’’

Amend the Analysis accompanying R.C.M.

1003(b)(3) by inserting the following before

the discussion of subsection (b)(4):

‘‘2000 Amendment: The amendment

clearly defines the authority of special and

summary courts-martial to adjudge both fines

and forfeitures. See generally, United States

v. Tualla, 52 M.J. 228 (2000).’’

Add R.C.M. 1107(d)(5) as follows:

‘‘Limitations on sentence of a special courtmartial where a fine has been adjudged. A

convening authority may not approve in its

entirety a sentence adjudged at a special

court-martial where, when approved, the

cumulative impact of the fine and forfeitures,

whether adjudged or by operation of Article

58b, UCMJ, would exceed the jurisdictional

maximum dollar amount of forfeitures that

may be adjudged at that court-martial.’’

Amend the Analysis accompanying R.C.M.

1107(d) by inserting the following before the

discussion of subsection (e):

‘‘2000 Amendment: Subparagraph (d)(5).

This subparagraph is new. The amendment

addresses the impact of Article 58b, UCMJ.

In special courts-martial, where the

cumulative impact of a fine and forfeitures,

whether adjudged or by operation of Article

58b, would otherwise exceed the total dollar

amount of forfeitures that could be adjudged

at the special court-martial, the fine and/or

adjudged forfeitures should be disapproved

or decreased accordingly. See generally,

United States v. Tualla, 52 M.J. 228, 231–32

(2000).’’