Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 28, 2000 / Notices 39883

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Manual for Courts-Martial

AGENCY: Joint Service Committee on

Military Justice (JSC).

ACTION: Notice of Summary of Public

Comment Received Regarding Proposed

Amendments to the Manual for CourtsMartial, United States, (1998 ed.).

SUMMARY: The JSC is forwarding final

proposed amendments to the Manual for

Courts-Martial, United States, (1998 ed.)

(MCM) to the Department of Defense.

The proposed changes concern the rules

of procedure applicable in trials by

courts-martial and implement the

amendment to Article 19 of the Uniform

Code of Military Justice contained in

section 577 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.

Subject to limitations prescribed by the

President, the amendment increased the

jurisdictional maximum punishment at

special courts-martial to confinement

for one year and forfeitures not

exceeding two-thirds pay per month for

one year, vice the previous six-month

jurisdictional limitation. 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.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials

received from the public are available

for inspection or copying at the U.S. Air

Force, Air Force Legal Services Agency,

Military Justice Division, Room 202, 112

Luke Avenue, Bolling Air Force Base,

Washington, DC 20332–8000, between 8

a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal Holidays.

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.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:

Background

On April 4, 2000, the JSC published

a Notice of Proposed Amendments to

the Manual for Courts-Martial, (MCM)

United States, (1998 ed.) and Notice of

Public Meeting. On April 18, 2000, the

public meeting was held and one

individual provided oral comment. The

JSC also received two letters

commenting on the proposed

amendments.

Purpose

The proposed changes concern the

rules of procedure applicable in trials by

courts-martial and implement the

amendment to Article 19 of the Uniform

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

contained in section 577 of the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2000. Subject to limitations

prescribed by the President, the

amendment increased the jurisdictional

maximum punishment at special courtsmartial to confinement for one year and

forfeitures not exceeding two-thirds pay

per month for one year, vice the

previous six-month jurisdictional

limitation.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

The two written comments received

were not supportive of the amendments.

The first writer addressed problems he

saw with the decision to expand the

jurisdiction of special courts-martial.

The second writer believed that

Congress enacted incomplete legislation

and, in doing so, upset the coherence

and unity within the Uniform Code of

Military Justice. The writer also

believed that the JSC proposed

amendments to implement the change

to Article 19, UCMJ, created internal

philosophical conflicts within the MCM

provisions. He recommended

withholding action on the proposed

MCM amendments until Articles 54(c)

and 66, UCMJ, were also amended to

mandate verbatim transcripts and

appellate review in cases involving a

bad conduct discharge or confinement

in excess of six months or forfeitures of

pay in excess of six months. He

recommended the MCM apply similar

protections. The second writer also

recommended that the current

Discussion accompanying R.C.M.

1107(d)(1) addressing the mitigation of

a bad conduct discharge be retained and

suggested that the amendment to the

analysis accompanying R.C.M. 1107

contained typographical errors.

The JSC has considered the oral and

written comment provided and is

satisfied that the proposed amendments

are appropriate to implement the

Congressional change to Article 19,

UCMJ. However, the JSC has

reexamined the analysis accompanying

R.C.M. 1107 and has corrected the

identified typographical errors. The JSC

recognized the arguable tension between

Article 19 as amended and Article

54(c)(1)(B) and took those matters into

consideration prior to publication of the

proposed amendments. After

reconsidering the issues raised, the JSC

does not believe the proposed MCM

amendments are internally inconsistent

or upset the basic architecture of the

UCMJ and will forward the proposed

amendments to the Department of

Defense.

All public comment received will be

forwarded, along with the proposed

amendments, to the Department of

Defense.

Proposed Amendments After

Consideration of Public Comment

Received

The proposed amendments to the

Manual for Courts-Martial are as

follows:

Amend R.C.M. 201(f)(2)(B)(i) to read

as follows:

‘‘(i) Upon a finding of guilty, special

courts-martial may adjudge, under

limitations prescribed by this Manual,

any punishment authorized under

R.C.M. 1003 except death, dishonorable

discharge, dismissal, confinement for

more than 1 year, hard labor without

confinement for more than 3 months,

forfeiture of pay exceeding two-thirds

pay per month, or any forfeiture of pay

for more than 1 year.’’

Amend R.C.M. 201(f)(2)(B)(ii) to read

as follows:

‘‘(ii) A bad-conduct discharge,

confinement for more than six months,

or forfeiture of pay for more than six

months, may not be adjudged by a

special court-martial unless:

(a) Counsel qualified under Article

27(b) is detailed to represent the

accused; and

(b) A military judge is detailed to the

trial, except in a case in which a

military judge could not be detailed

because of physical conditions or

military exigencies. Physical conditions

or military exigencies, as the terms are

here used, may exist under rare

circumstances, such as on an isolated

ship on the high seas or in a unit in an

inaccessible area, provided compelling

reasons exist why trial must be held at

that time and at that place. Mere

inconvenience does not constitute a

physical condition or military exigency

and does not excuse a failure to detail

a military judge. If a military judge

cannot be detailed because of physical

conditions or military exigencies, a badconduct discharge, confinement for

more than six months, or forfeiture of

pay for more than six months, may be

adjudged provided the other conditions

have been met. In that event, however,

the convening authority shall, prior to

trial, make a written statement

explaining why a military judge could

not be obtained. This statement shall be

appended to the record of trial and shall

set forth in detail the reasons why a

39884 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 28, 2000 / Notices

military judge could not be detailed,

and why the trial had to be held at that

time and place.’’

Amend the analysis accompanying

R.C.M. 201(f) by inserting the following

before the discussion of subsection (3):

‘‘2000 Amendment: Subsections

(f)(2)(B)(i) and (f)(2)(B)(ii) were

amended to remove previous limitations

and thereby implement the amendment

to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19, UCMJ)

contained in section 577 of the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2000, Public Law No. 106–65, 113

Stat. 512 (1999). Subject to limitations

prescribed by the President, the

amendment increased the jurisdictional

maximum punishment at special courtsmartial to confinement for one year and

forfeitures not exceeding two-thirds pay

per month for one year, vice the

previous six-month jurisdictional

limitation.’’

Amend the seventh paragraph of the

Discussion accompanying R.C.M.

601(e)(1) to read as follows:

‘‘The convening authority should

acknowledge by an instruction that no

bad-conduct discharge, confinement for

more than six months, or forfeiture of

pay for more than six months, may be

adjudged when the prerequisites under

Article 19 will not be met. See R.C.M.

201(f)(2)(B)(ii). For example, this

instruction should be given when a

court reporter is not detailed.’’

Amend the first paragraph of the

Discussion accompanying R.C.M. 808 to

read as follows:

‘‘Except in a special court-martial not

authorized to adjudge a bad-conduct

discharge, confinement for more than

six months, or forfeiture of pay for more

than six months, the trial counsel

should ensure that a qualified court

reporter is detailed to the court-martial.

Trial counsel should also ensure that all

exhibits and other documents relating to

the case are properly maintained for

later inclusion in the record. See also

R.C.M. 1103(j) as to the use of

videotapes, audiotapes, and similar

recordings for the record of trial.

Because of the potential requirement for

a verbatim transcript, all proceedings,

including sidebar conferences,

arguments, and rulings and instructions

by the military judges, should be

recorded.’’

Amend the sixth paragraph of the

Discussion accompanying R.C.M.

1003(b)(2) to read as follows:

‘‘At a special court-martial, if a badconduct discharge and confinement are

adjudged, then the operation of Article

58b results in a forfeiture of two-thirds

of pay only (not allowances) during that

period of confinement. If only

confinement is adjudged, and that

confinement exceeds six months, then

the operation of Article 58b results in a

forfeiture of two-thirds of pay only (not

allowances) during the period of

confinement. If only a bad conduct

discharge is adjudged, Article 58b has

no effect on pay.’’

Amend R.C.M. 1103(b)(2)(B)(i) to read

as follows:

‘‘(i) Any part of the sentence adjudged

exceeds six months confinement,

forfeiture of pay greater than two-thirds

pay per month, or any forfeiture of pay

for more than six months or other

punishments which may be adjudged by

a special court-martial; or’’

Amend the analysis accompanying

R.C.M. 1103(b)(2)(B) by inserting the

following before the discussion of

subsection (2)(C):

‘‘2000 Amendment: Subsection (2)(B)

was amended to implement the

amendment to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19,

UCMJ) contained in section 577 of the

National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law No. 106–

65, 113 Stat. 512 (1999) increasing the

jurisdictional maximum punishment at

special courts-martial. R.C.M.

1103(b)(2)(B) was amended to prevent

an inconsistent requirement for a

verbatim transcript between a general

court-martial and a special court-martial

when the adjudged sentence of a general

court-martial does not include a

punitive discharge or confinement

greater than six months, but does

include forfeiture of two-thirds pay per

month for more than six months but not

more than 12 months.’’

Amend R.C.M. 1103(c) to read as

follows:

‘‘(c) Special courts-martial.

(1) Involving a bad-conduct discharge,

confinement for more than six months,

or forfeiture of pay for more than six

months. The requirements of

subsections (b)(1), (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(B),

(b)(2)(D), and (b)(3) of this rule shall

apply in a special court-martial in

which a bad-conduct discharge,

confinement for more than six months,

or forfeiture of pay for more than six

months, has been adjudged.

(2) All other special courts-martial. If

the special court-martial resulted in

findings of guilty but a bad-conduct

discharge, confinement for more than

six months, or forfeiture of pay for more

than six months, was not adjudged, the

requirements of subsections (b)(1),

(b)(2)(D), and (b)(3)(A)–(F) and (I)–(M)

of this rule shall apply.’’

Amend the analysis accompanying

R.C.M. 1103(c) by inserting the

following before the discussion of

subsection (e):

‘‘2000 Amendment: Subsection (c)

was amended to implement the

amendment to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19,

UCMJ) contained in section 577 of the

National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106–65,

113 Stat. 512 (1999) increasing the

jurisdictional maximum punishment at

special courts-martial. R.C.M. 1103(c)

was amended to conform the

requirements for a verbatim transcript

with the requirements of Article 19 for

a ‘‘complete record’’ in cases where the

adjudged sentence includes a badconduct discharge, confinement for

more than six months, or forfeiture of

pay for more than six months.’’

Amend R.C.M. 1103(f)(1) to read as

follows:

‘‘(1) Approve only so much of the

sentence which could be adjudged by a

special court-martial, except that no

bad-conduct discharge, confinement for

more than six months, or forfeiture of

two-thirds pay per month for more than

six months, may be approved; or’’

Amend the analysis accompanying

R.C.M. 1103(f) by inserting the

following before the discussion of

subsection (g):

‘‘2000 Amendment: Subsection (f)(1)

was amended to implement the

amendment to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19,

UCMJ) contained in section 577 of the

National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106–65,

113 Stat. 512 (1999) increasing the

jurisdictional maximum punishment at

special courts-martial. R.C.M. 1103(f)(1)

was amended to include the additional

limitations on sentence contained in

Article 19, UCMJ.’’

Amend R.C.M. 1104(a)(2)(A) to read

as follows:

‘‘(A) Authentication by the military

judge. In special courts-martial in which

a bad-conduct discharge, confinement

for more than six months, or forfeiture

of pay for more than six months, has

been adjudged and in general courtsmartial, except as provided in

subsection (a)(2)(B) of this rule, the

military judge present at the end of the

proceedings shall authenticate the

record of trial, or that portion over

which the military judge presided. If

more than one military judge presided

over the proceedings, each military

judge shall authenticate the record of

the proceedings over which that

military judge presided, except as

provided in subsection (a)(2)(B) of this

rule. The record of trial of special

courts-martial in which no bad-conduct

discharge, confinement for more than

six months, or forfeiture of pay for more

than six months, was adjudged shall be

authenticated in accordance with

regulations of the Secretary concerned.’’

Amend the analysis accompanying

R.C.M. 1104(a) by inserting the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 28, 2000 / Notices 39885

following before the discussion of

subsection (b):

‘‘2000 Amendment: Subsection

(a)(2)(A) was amended to implement the

amendment to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19,

UCMJ) contained in section 577 of the

National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106–65,

113 Stat. 512 (1999) increasing the

jurisdictional maximum punishment at

special courts-martial. R.C.M.

1104(a)(2)(A) was amended to ensure

that the military judge authenticates all

verbatim records of trial at special

courts-martial.’’

Amend R.C.M. 1104(e) to read as

follows:

‘‘(e) Forwarding. After every courtmartial, including a rehearing and new

and other trials, the authenticated

record shall be forwarded to the

convening authority for initial review

and action, provided that in case of a

special court-martial in which a badconduct discharge or confinement for

one year was adjudged or a general

court-martial, the convening authority

shall refer the record to the staff judge

advocate or legal officer for

recommendation under R.C.M. 1106

before the convening authority takes

action.’’

Amend the analysis accompanying

R.C.M. 1104(e) by inserting the

following at the end of the discussion of

subsection (e):

‘‘2000 Amendment: Subsection (e)

was amended to implement the

amendment to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19,

UCMJ) contained in section 577 of the

National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106–65,

113 Stat. 512 (1999) increasing the

jurisdictional maximum punishment at

special courts-martial. This amendment

reflects the change to R.C.M. 1106 for

special court-martial with an adjudged

sentence that includes confinement for

one year.’’

Amend R.C.M. 1106(a) to read as

follows:

‘‘(a) In general. Before the convening

authority takes action under R.C.M.

1107 on a record of trial by general

court-martial or a record of trial by

special court-martial which includes a

sentence to a bad-conduct discharge or

confinement for one year, that

convening authority’s staff judge

advocate or legal officer shall, except as

provided in subsection (c) of this rule,

forward to the convening authority a

recommendation under this rule.’’

Amend the analysis accompanying

R.C.M. 1106(a) by inserting the

following before the discussion of

subsection (b):

‘‘2000 Amendment: Subsection (e)

was amended to implement the

amendment to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19,

UCMJ) contained in section 577 of the

National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106–65,

113 Stat. 512 (1999) increasing the

jurisdictional maximum punishment at

special courts-martial. This amendment

requires all special courts-martial cases

subject to appellate review to comply

with this rule.’’

Amend the second paragraph of the

Discussion accompanying R.C.M.

1107(d)(1) to read as follows:

‘‘When mitigating forfeitures, the

duration and amounts of forfeiture may

be changed as long as the total amount

forfeited is not increased and neither the

amount nor duration of the forfeitures

exceeds the jurisdiction of the courtmartial. When mitigating confinement

or hard labor without confinement, the

convening authority should use the

equivalencies at R.C.M. 1003(b)(6) and

(7), as appropriate. One form of

punishment may be changed to a less

severe punishment of a different nature,

as long as the changed punishment is

one that the court-martial could have

adjudged. For example, a bad-conduct

discharge adjudged by a special courtmartial could be changed to

confinement for up to one year (but not

vice versa). A pretrial agreement may

also affect what punishments may be

changed by the convening authority.’’

Amend R.C.M. 1107(d)(4) to read as

follows:

‘‘(4) Limitations on sentence based on

record of trial. If the record of trial does

not meet the requirements of R.C.M.

1103(b)(2)(B) or (c)(1), the convening

authority may not approve a sentence in

excess of that which may be adjudged

by a special court-martial, or one which

includes a bad-conduct discharge,

confinement for more than six months,

forfeiture of pay exceeding two-thirds

pay per month, or any forfeiture of pay

for more than six months.’’

Amend the analysis accompanying

R.C.M. 1107(d) by inserting the

following at the end of the discussion of

subsection (d):

‘‘2000 Amendment: The Discussion

accompanying subsection (d)(1) was

amended to implement the amendment

to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19, UCMJ)

contained in section 577 of the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2000, Public Law 106–65, 113 Stat.

512 (1999) increasing the jurisdictional

maximum punishment at special courtsmartial. R.C.M. 1107(d)(4) was amended

to include the additional limitations on

sentence contained in Article 19,

UCMJ.’’

Amend R.C.M. 1109(e) and (e)(1) to

read as follows:

‘‘(e) Vacation of a suspended special

court-martial sentence wherein a badconduct discharge or confinement for

one year was not adjudged.

(1) In general. Before vacating the

suspension of a special court-martial

punishment that does not include a badconduct discharge or confinement for

one year, the special court-martial

convening authority for the command in

which the probationer is serving or

assigned shall cause a hearing to be held

on the alleged violation(s) of the

conditions of suspension.’’

Amend the analysis accompanying

R.C.M. 1109(e) by inserting the

following at the end of the discussion of

subsection (e):

‘‘2000 Amendment: Subsection (e)

was amended to implement the

amendment to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19,

UCMJ) contained in section 577 of the

National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106–65,

113 Stat. 512 (1999) increasing the

jurisdictional maximum punishment at

special courts-martial.’’

Amend R.C.M. 1109(f) and (f)(1) to

read as follows:

‘‘(f) Vacation of a suspended special

court-martial sentence that includes a

bad-conduct discharge or confinement

for one year.

(1) The procedure for the vacation of

a suspended approved bad-conduct

discharge or of any suspended portion

of an approved sentence to confinement

for one year, shall follow that set forth

in subsection (d) of this rule.’’

Amend the analysis accompanying

R.C.M. 1109(f) by inserting the

following at the end of the discussion of

subsection (f):

‘‘2000 Amendment: (f) Vacation of a

suspended special court-martial

sentence that includes a bad-conduct

discharge or confinement for one year.

Subsection (f) was amended to

implement the amendment to 10 U.S.C.

819 (Article 19, UCMJ) contained in

section 577 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000,

Public Law 106–65, 113 Stat. 512 (1999)

increasing the jurisdictional maximum

punishment at special courts-martial.

This amendment reflects the decision to

treat an approved sentence of

confinement for one year, regardless of

whether any period of confinement is

suspended, as a serious offense, in the

same manner as a suspended approved

bad-conduct discharge at special courtsmartial under Article 72, UCMJ and

R.C.M. 1109.’’

Amend the Discussion accompanying

R.C.M. 1109(f) to read as follows:

‘‘An officer exercising special courtmartial jurisdiction may vacate any

suspended punishments other than an

39886 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 28, 2000 / Notices

approved suspended bad-conduct

discharge or any suspended portion of

an approved sentence to confinement

for one year, regardless of whether they

are contained in the same sentence as

the bad-conduct discharge or

confinement for one year. See Appendix

18 for a sample of a Report of

Proceedings to Vacate Suspension of a

Special Court-Martial Sentence

including a bad-conduct discharge or

confinement for one year under Article

72, UCMJ, and R.C.M. 1109 (DD Form

455).’’

Amend the title to Appendix 18 to

read as follows:

‘‘Report of Proceedings to Vacate

Suspension of a General Court-Martial

or of a Special Court-Martial Sentence

Including a Bad-Conduct Discharge or

Confinement for One Year Under Article

72, UCMJ, and R.C.M. 1109 (DD Form

455).’’

Amend R.C.M. 1110(a) to read as

follows:

‘‘(a) In general. After any general

court-martial, except one in which the

approved sentence includes death, and

after any special court-martial in which

the approved sentence includes a badconduct discharge or confinement for

one year, the accused may waive or

withdraw appellate review.’’

Amend the analysis accompanying

R.C.M. 1110(a) by inserting the

following at the end of the discussion of

subsection (a):

‘‘2000 Amendment: Subsection (a)

was amended to implement the

amendment to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19,

UCMJ) contained in section 577 of the

National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106–65,

113 Stat. 512 (1999) increasing the

jurisdictional maximum punishment at

special courts-martial.’’

Amend the Discussion accompanying

R.C.M. 1110(a) to read as follows:

‘‘Appellate review is not available for

special courts-martial in which a badconduct discharge or confinement for

one year was not adjudged or approved

or for summary courts-martial. Cases not

subject to appellate review, or in which

appellate review is waived or

withdrawn, are reviewed by a judge

advocate under R.C.M. 1112. Such cases

may also be submitted to the Judge

Advocate General for review. See R.C.M.

1201(b)(3). Appellate review is

mandatory when the approved sentence

includes death.’’

Amend R.C.M. 1111(b) to read as

follows:

‘‘(1) Cases including an approved badconduct discharge or confinement for

one year. If the approved sentence of a

special court-martial includes a badconduct discharge or confinement for

one year, the record shall be disposed of

as provided in subsection (a) of this

rule.

(2) Other cases. The record of trial by

a special court-martial in which the

approved sentence does not include a

bad-conduct discharge or confinement

for one year shall be forwarded directly

to a judge advocate for review under

R.C.M. 1112. Four copies of the order

promulgating the result of trial shall be

forwarded with the record of trial,

unless otherwise prescribed by

regulations of the Secretary concerned.’’

Amend the analysis accompanying

R.C.M. 1111(b) by inserting the

following at the end of the discussion:

‘‘2000 Amendment: R.C.M. 1111(b)

was amended to implement the

amendment to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19,

UCMJ) contained in section 577 of the

National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106–65,

113 Stat. 512 (1999) increasing the

jurisdictional maximum punishment at

special courts-martial. The amendment

ensures all special courts-martial not

requiring appellate review are reviewed

by a judge advocate under R.C.M.

1112.’’

Amend R.C.M. 1112(a)(2) to read as

follows:

‘‘Each special court-martial in which

the accused has waived or withdrawn

appellate review under R.C.M. 1110 or

in which the approved sentence does

not include a bad-conduct discharge or

confinement for one year; and’’

Amend the analysis accompanying

R.C.M. 1112 by inserting the following

at the end of the discussion:

‘‘2000 Amendment: R.C.M. 1112(a)(2)

was amended to implement the

amendment to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19,

UCMJ) contained in section 577 of the

National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106–65,

113 Stat. 512 (1999) increasing the

jurisdictional maximum punishment at

special courts-martial. The amendment

ensures all special courts-martial not

requiring appellate review are reviewed

by a judge advocate under R.C.M.

1112.’’

Amend Page A8–19, Left Margin

Entry to Note 100 to read as follows:

Advice in GCMs and SPCMs in which BCD or confinement

for one year is adjudged.

[Note 100. In cases subject to review by a Court of Criminal Appeals, the following advice should be given. In other cases proceed to Note 101 or 102 as

appropriate.]

Amend Page A8–21, Left Margin Entry to Note 102 to read as follows:

SPCM not involving a BCD or confinement for one year ........ [Note 102. In special courts-martial not involving BCD or confinement for one

year, the following advice should be given.]

Amend Page A17–4, first note to

paragraph d, to read as follows:

‘‘[Note. Orders promulgating the

vacation of the suspension of a

dismissal will be published by

departmental orders of the Secretary

concerned. Vacations of any other

suspension of a general court-martial

sentence, or of a special court-martial

sentence which as approved and

affirmed includes a bad-conduct

discharge or confinement for one year,

will be promulgated by the officer

exercising general court-martial

jurisdiction over the probationer

(Article 72(b)). The vacation of

suspension of any other sentence may

be promulgated by an appropriate

convening authority under Article 72(c).

See R.C.M. 1109.]’’

Dated: June 22, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00–16265 Filed 6–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–01–P