Case: UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. BOARD OF REVIEW NOS. 2, 1, 4, U. S. Army Judiciary, Respondents
Abbreviation: United States v. Board of Review Nos. 2, 1, 4
Decision Date: 1967-07-21
Docket Number: Miscellaneous Docket Nos. 67-4, 67-5, 67-6
Citation: 17 C.M.A. 150
Volume: 17
Reporter: Decisions of the United States Court of Military Appeals
Court: United States Court of Military Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: UNITED STATES, Petitioner v BOARD OF REVIEW NOS. 2, 1, 4, U. S. Army Judiciary, Respondents
Judges: 
Pages: 150–150

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Petitioner v BOARD OF REVIEW NOS. 2, 1, 4, U. S. Army Judiciary, Respondents
17 USCMA 150, 37 CMR 414
Miscellaneous Docket Nos. 67-4, 67-5, 67-6
July 21, 1967
Captain William R. Steinmetz argued the cause for Petitioner. With him on the brief were Colonel Peter S. Wondolowski, Lieutenant Colonel David Rarick, Major John F. Webb, Jr., and Captain Robert E. Davis.
Major Jack G. McKay argued the cause for Respondent.
Lieutenant Colonel Jacob Hagopian argued amicus curiae.

Opinion:
Opinion of the Court
Pee Curiam:
This action involves the same controversy as United States v DuBay, et al, 17 USCMA 147, 37 CMR 411, this day decided. The order of the board of review directing certain steps therein is vacated, and the board is instructed to follow the procedures outlined in United States v DuBay, supra.