Case: UNITED STATES, Appellee v. GEORGE R. LANGSTON, Jr., Airman First Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant; UNITED STATES, Appellee v. RICHARD C. MORGAN, Seaman, U. S. Navy, Appellant; UNITED STATES, Appellee v. TIMOTHY W. MOSHER, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant; UNITED STATES, APPELLEE v. WALTER E. FELIX, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant
Abbreviation: United States v. Langston
Decision Date: 1973-06-22
Docket Number: No. 26,667; No. 26,669; No. 26,724; No. 26,798
Citation: 22 C.M.A. 372
Volume: 22
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 GEORGE R. LANGSTON, Jr., Airman First Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant UNITED STATES, Appellee v RICHARD C. MORGAN, Seaman, U. S. Navy, Appellant UNITED STATES, Appellee v TIMOTHY W. MOSHER, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant UNITED STATES, APPELLEE v WALTER E. FELIX, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant
Judges: 
Pages: 372–373

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Appellee v GEORGE R. LANGSTON, Jr., Airman First Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant UNITED STATES, Appellee v RICHARD C. MORGAN, Seaman, U. S. Navy, Appellant UNITED STATES, Appellee v TIMOTHY W. MOSHER, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant UNITED STATES, APPELLEE v WALTER E. FELIX, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant
No. 26,667
No. 26,669
No. 26,724
No. 26,798
June 22, 1973
On the pleadings for Appellants, Accused, were Colonel George M. Wilson (No. 26,667), Captain Philip F O’Neill (No. 26,667), Commander George W. Powell, JAGC, USN (No. 26,669), Lieutenant Stephen T Myking, JAGC, USNR (No. 26,724), and Captain T O. Tottenham, USMCR (No. 26,798).
On the pleadings for Appellee, United States, were Colonel C. F. Bennett (No. 26,667), Lieutenant Colonel G. L. Bailey, USMC (Nos. 26,669, 26,724 and 26,798), and Lieutenant E. Alan Hechtkopf, JAGC, USN (No. 26,724).

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Per Curiam:
The question presented for review in each of these cases is whether evidence of a previous Article 15 disciplinary proceeding at which correctional custody was imposed was inadmissible because the accused was unrepresented by appointed counsel at the proceeding. In United States v Shamel, 22 USCMA —, — CMR — (June 22, 1973), decided this date, we sustained the admissibility of the evidence. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Military Review in each case is affirmed.