76998 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Notices

[FR Doc. 00–31242 Filed 12–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Manual for Courts-Martial; Proposed

Amendments

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, (2000 ed.).

SUMMARY: The JSC is forwarding final

proposed amendments to the Manual for

Courts-Martial, United States, (2000 ed.)

(MCM) to the Department of Defense.

The proposed changes, resulting from

the JSC’s 2000 annual review of the

MCM, concern the rules of procedure

applicable in trials by 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.

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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 15, 2000, the JSC published

a Notice of Proposed Amendments to

the Manual for Courts-Martial, (MCM)

United States, (2000 ed.). On June 15,

2000, the JSC also published a Notice of

Public Meeting to receive comment on

its 2000 draft annual review of the

Manual for Courts-Martial. On June 28,

2000, the public meeting was held.

Three individuals attended and one

individual provided oral comment. The

JSC also received one letter commenting

on the proposed amendments.

Purpose

The proposed changes concern the

rules of procedure applicable in trials by

courts-martial. More specifically, the

proposed changes: (1) Add references to

Military Rule of Evidence 513,

Psychotherapist-patient privilege, in

Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 701,

Discovery: (2) clarify 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 courtmartial to adjudge and the convening

authority to approve, the combination of

both a fine and forfeitures at summary

and special courts-martial.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

No substantive comment was received

on the proposed amendments except for

an expressed desire for a fuller rationale

accompanying future changes. The JSC

has considered the oral and written

comment provided and is satisfied that

the proposed amendments are

appropriate to implement. However, the

JSC has reexamined the analysis

accompanying R.C.M. 707 and has

modified it to more fully explain why

the amendment was made. The JSC will

forward the public comment and the

proposed amendments, as modified, to

the Department of Defense.

The oral and written comment, from

the same individual, also discussed the

new provision of the JSC’s standard

operating procedures requiring the JSC

to invite members of the public to

submit proposals as well as the form of

that invitation in the May 15, 2000

Federal Register Notice of Proposed

Amendments. The invitation provided

that ‘‘proposals should include

reference to the specific provision you

wish changed, a rationale for the

proposed change, and specific and

detailed proposed language to replace

the current language.’’ The invitation

also said that ‘‘[i]incomplete

submissions will not be considered.’’

The writer said that this last sentence

would have a chilling effect on the

submission of proposals. The writer also

said that individuals or organizations

may well perceive problems in the

current MCM but may not have the time

or expertise to prepare the type of

submission required by the JSC. The

writer believed that ideas for change

should not be discouraged and that the

burden should fall to the JSC, rather

than to the public, to not only consider

ideas for change but in addition take it

upon itself to prepare full proposals to

implement any ideas for change

submitted which are deemed

meritorious. The writer also believed

that the invitation to the public should

be clarified to note that proposals from

the public which are not submitted

within the public comment period will

still be considered, but may not be able

to be included in the next Annual

Review. The writer recommended that

the JSC’s procedures be amended to

implement the suggestions and that the

rules pertaining to public participation

in the MCM rulemaking process be

included in appropriate DOD Directives

published in the Code of Federal

Regulations and in the MCM. The JSC

has considered these comments and

have decided to change the text of the

invitation in next year’s notice. To best

serve the JSC in understanding the

nature of the proposals, yet not chill

their submission, the invitation will be

changed to read ‘‘incomplete proposals

may not be considered’’ as opposed to

‘‘will not be considered.’’ The JSC will

also receive public proposals at any

time but proposals received outside the

public comment period may not be

received in time to be considered in the

next Annual Review. The JSC has

concluded that it is not necessary to

incorporate the new rules inviting

public proposals into DoD Directive

5500.17, Role and Responsibilities of

the Joint Service Committee (JSC) on

Military Justice or the MCM. The DoD

Directive will be published in the MCM

in future editions.

Proposed Amendments After

Consideration of Public Comment

Received

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 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-in-chief at trial or which were

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Notices 76999

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 to also take into

consideration the protections afforded

by the new psychotherapist-patient

privilege under 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 courtsmartial 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 addition

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

court-martial 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 courtsmartial, 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).’’

Dated: November 30, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00–31247 Filed 12–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Defense Science Board; Meeting

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee

Meetings.

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board

will meet in closed session on March 7–

8, 2001; May 16–17, 2001; and October

24–25, 2001, at the Pentagon, Arlington,

Virginia.

The mission of the Defense Science

Board is to advise the Secretary of

Defense and the Under Secretary of

Defense for Acquisition, Technology &

Logistics on scientific and technical

matters as they affect the perceived

needs of the Department of Defense. At

these meetings, the Defense Science

Board will discuss interim findings and

recommendations resulting from

ongoing Task Force activities. The

Board will also discuss plans for future

consideration of scientific and technical

aspects of specific strategies, tactics, and

policies as they may affect the U.S.

national defense posture.

In accordance with Section 10(d) of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act,

P.L. No. 92–463, as amended (5 U.S.C.

App. II, (1994)), it has been determined

that these Defense Science Board

meetings concern matters listed in 5

U.S.C. § 552b(c)(1)(1994), and that

accordingly these meetings will be

closed to the public.

Dated: November 30, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00–31241 Filed 12–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Privacy Act of 1974; System of

Records

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.

ACTION: Notice to alter a system of

records.

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of

Defense proposes to alter a system of

records notices in its inventory of record

systems subject to the Privacy Act of

1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The

system of records identified as DHA 05,

Military Depolyment Issues Files, is

being altered to add two routine uses.

DATES: The changes will be effective on

January 8, 2001 unless comments are

received that would result in a contrary

determination.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to OSD

Privacy Act Coordinator, Records

Management Division, Washington

Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense

Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–1155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

David Bosworth at (703) 601–4725.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office

of the Secretary of Defense notices for

systems of records subject to the Privacy

Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended,

have been published in the Federal

Register and are available from the

address above.

The proposed system report, as

required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the

Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was

submitted on November 30, 2000, to the

House Committee on Government

Reform, the Senate Committee on

Governmental Affairs, and the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I

to OMB Circular No. A–130, ‘Federal

Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining

Records About Individuals,’ dated