Case: UNITED STATES, Appellee v. BOBBY F. HOLLAND, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant
Abbreviation: United States v. Holland
Decision Date: 1958-09-12
Docket Number: No. 11,121
Citation: 9 C.M.A. 573
Volume: 9
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 BOBBY F. HOLLAND, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant
Judges: 
Pages: 573–574

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Appellee v BOBBY F. HOLLAND, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant
9 USCMA 573, 26 CMR 353
No. 11,121
Decided September 12, 1958
Colonel Edivard M. O’Connell and First Lieutenant William L. Garwood were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.
Lieutenant Colonel John G. Lee and First Lieutenant Thomas M. Lofton were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion:
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:
The accused maintains he is not subject to military jurisdiction because at the time of induction he scored less than ten on the Armed Forces Qualification Test. However, as a result of other tests he was "administratively accepted" for service and entered upon such service.
Before reaching the merits of the ease, the Government contends that the accused's petition for review was not filed within the statutory period. See Article 67(b)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 867. The accused acknowledges that the filing of his petition was late, but he attributes the tardiness "wholly" to the fact that he was "in transit," having been transferred from Germany to the United States during the running of the statutory period. See Feld, Manual of Courts-Martial Practice and Appeal, § 122(c) (1957). We need not decide this question. The specific point raised by the accused's appeal was considered by us and determined adversely to him in United States v Martin, 9 USCMA 568, 26 CMR 348, decided this date. Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is affirmed.