Case: UNITED STATES, Appellee v. JULIUS GREEN, Jr., Basic Airman, U. S. Air Force, Appellant
Abbreviation: United States v. Green
Decision Date: 1957-02-21
Docket Number: No. 9051
Citation: 7 C.M.A. 616
Volume: 7
Reporter: Decisions of the United States Court of Military Appeals
Court: United States Court of Military Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: UNITED STATES, Appellee v JULIUS GREEN, Jr., Basic Airman, U. S. Air Force, Appellant
Judges: Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Ferguson concur.
Pages: 616–617

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Appellee v JULIUS GREEN, Jr., Basic Airman, U. S. Air Force, Appellant
7 USCMA 616, 23 CMR 80
No. 9051
Decided February 21, 1957
Lieutentnt Colonel Stanley S. Butt, Captain Richard C. Bochen, and Captain Norman J. Nelson were on ,the brief for Appellant, Accused.
Lieutenant Colonel Francis P. Murray, Major John M. Rankin, and Major Fred C. Vowell were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion:
Opinion of the Court
GEORGE W. Latimer, Judge:
The accused pleaded guilty before a special court-martial to the offense of absence without leave, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 886, and was found guilty in accordance with his plea. He was sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, partial forfeitures, and confinement for six months. The sentence was approved by both the convening authority and the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction. The board of review affirmed, and we granted review to determine the sufficiency of the staff judge advocate's review in this case.
This case arose within the same overall command as did the cases of United States v Hammock, 7 USCMA 614, 23 CMR 78, and United States v Hankerson, 7 USCMA 615, 23 CMR 79. Everything that we said in those cases applies here as well. Once again, counsel for the parties stipulated that we might consider certain affidavits, and also stipulated as to the truth of their contents. When these affidavits are considered, once again it must be said that there can no longer be any question as to the propriety of what was done in this case.
Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is affirmed.
Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Ferguson concur.