1

the army U HEAmQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Department of the Army Pamphlet Property Accountability: 27-50-75 Revised AR 735-11 March 1979 Major Theodore B. Borek Table of Contents Administrative Division, OTJAG

Property Accountability: Revised AR 735-11 1 7 The revised Army 735-11,l Law Day 1979 (hereinafter referred to as AR 735-ll), con- TJAGSA Video and Audio Catalogue 8 Labor Law Item 8 tains property accountability procedures for Reserve Affairs Items 8 the Army that differ significantly from those Notes 18 contained in AR 735-11, 1 May 74 (hereinafter 24 CLE News e 38 referred to as Old AR 735-11). Damages col- JAGC Personnel Section lectible will no longer be for the full amount of a loss, in most cases, but will be limited to one month's pay. Gross and simple negligence standards have been discarded in favor of a single definition of negligence. A new Report d Survey form has been adopted, and a new method of accounting for losses when there is no negligence has been instituted. Approval and appeal authorities usually are at the SPCMCA and GCMCA levels rather than higher authority as previously was the case. This article identifies changes of particular interest to attorneys who will be called upon to provide advice concerning the new procedures. Background. Changes in Army accountabil- ity procedures were prompted by a 1977 report of The Inspector General.2 Having conducted a survey of Army installations and divisions, The Inspector General concluded that dollar losses were so large that improved management of DA Pam 27-50-75 f 2 the accountability systems was needed. The 78.1° Loss is defined to be loss of, damage to, or Chief of Staff approved the report to include destruction of property of the United States implementation of 19 recommendations per- Government under control of the Army.l‘ For taining to property accountability. Sub- losses occurring before 1 January 1979 the pro- sequently, the Department of the Army Prop- cedures contained in prior editions of AR erty Accountability Task Force (DAPATAF) 735-11 will be applied. Therefore, Old AR was established to implement The Inspector 735-11 should be retained for use as necessary. General recommendation^.^ Insofar as the National Guard is concerned, The work of the DAPATAF included consid- revised NGR 735-11 will implement AR eration of both legal and policy questions and 735-11.12 However, revised NGR 735-11 has resulted in adoption of AR 735-11. Because not yet been promulgated. Consequently, until some of the procedures desired by the it is published existing National Guard proce- DAPATAF varied with DOD policy on prop- dures, which follow Old AR 735-11, will remain erty accountability,6 deviation from DOD in effect. 7200.10-M was requested.‘ DOD either ap- proved the deviations requested or determined The Limitation on Charges. The limitation on that the Army could implement procedures’ it pecuniary charges to one month’s base pay does desired without need for DOD approval. With * not apply to all losses of government property. respect to a proposal to limit pecuniary liability As reflected in paragraph AR 735-11, to one month’s pay, DOD approval was for 4-16b, the limitation does not apply to losses attribut- Army implementation on an interim basisnB able to accountable officers or for losses of DOD wide application may be considered if the personal arms and personal equipment.13 Be- Army procedures are effective. Consequently, cause collection from an accountable officer is / during 1979 the Army will be collecting data to based on 37 U.S.C. 1007(f); the full amount of evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this limita- loss attributable to such an officer is to be tion. charged. Arms and equipment losses collectible pursuant to 37 U.S.C. 1007(e), likewise must be charged in full.

pamphlet refer to both genders unless the context indi- cates another use. The Army hwye7 welcomes articles on topics of inter- est to . Articles should be typed double Commandant, Advdcate spaced and submitted to: Editor, The Army Lawye+, Colonel Barney L. Brannen, The Judge Advocate General’s School, Charlottesville, Editorial Board Virginia, 22901. Because of space limitations, it is un- Colonel Dqvid L. Winton likely that articles longer than twelve typewritten pages can be published. If the article contains footnotes they Mdor Percival D. Park should be typed on a separate sheet. Articles should fot- Editor low A Ungfom System of Citation (12th ed. 1976). Man- Captain Frank G. Brunson, Jr. uscripts will be returned only upon specific request. Administrative Assistant No compensation can be paid for articles. Ma. Helena Daidone Individual paid subscriptions are available through the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Print- ing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. The subscription price is $9.00 a year, 8Oe a single copy, for domestic The Amy Lawyer is published monthly by the Judge and APO addresses; $11.25 a year, S1.00 a single copy, Advocate General’s School. Articles represent the opinions for foreign addresses. of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Judge Advocate General or the Department of the Iss t Army. Masculine or feminine pronouns appearing in this DA Pam 27-50-75 3 Although paragraph 4-16 b(2), when read in or more months. As noted in paragraph 4-23c, connection with Table 4-2 and paragraph this collection period may be extended by the 1-7ag, could be interpreted to require charging approving authority based on financial or per- the full amount of a loss for any weapon, it is sonal circumstances of the individual held li- intended that the one month base pay limitation able. Extension of the period of collection is be applied in cases of loss of nonpersonal discretionary with the approving authority, and weapons. Also, it is intended that depreciation the maximum period of extension is not limited. be allowed, pursuant to paragraph 4-17, for losses of equipment or weapons. This includes Remission of Indebtedness. In addition to the depreciation for per regulatory limitation on pecuniary charges, in- debtedness may sometimes be remitted pur- Equipment Loss. mant agraph 5-8. Remission of in- paragraph 1-7j’ in dehtedness is bas S.C. 4837(d) and is personal use or p e pay limitation.” individual and normally stored with personal applies only to enlisted members and effects of, or worn, or carried on, the person. Secretarial determination that it is Considering this definition, a factual determi- in the best interest of the United States. Each nation whether th of equipment shou in order to know whether the base pay limita-

Table 4-2, AR 735-11, provides examples of how to calculate charges with respect to loss of arlhs and equipment (A&E) and other equip- ment and property (OEP) for military members tual determinatio an individual, pecuniary charges will be for the itation. The grade of a person on the date of the amount of any loss. On the other hand, if loss should be used to determine base pay.lg onsibility is nonpersonal, . charges will be, The grade of a person at the time of collection, subject to the one whether the individ officer or enlisted person. Paragraph 4-28a, which is based on 37 U.S.C. lOO?(c), provides for involuntary collection from enlisted person- loss amounts to less than one month’s base pay, nel of pecuniary charges as determined by a or to one month’s base pay if the OEP loss is report of survey. Collection against officers and greater than one month’s base pay.20 civilian employees, except as specifically iden- tified (i.e., for loss of arms and equipment and Negligence. Old AR 735-11 contained defini- for loss by accountable officers) is voluntary. 15 tions of simple and gross negligence.21 The Involuntary collection may not reduce the ac- standard to be applied usually was dependent tual pay received per month to less than one- upon whether responsibility for property was third of basic pay per month.16 Consequently, if personal or supwvisory.22 In the -new, regula- a full molith’s base be tion-, J‘tnonpersonal responsibility” is used in- charged, collection must be prorat tWb’ rVIsoi.3’ resfxinsibility’?, the defi- DA Pam 27-50-75 4 nition of personal responsibility has been re- tor’s conduct created a force which is in con- fined, and there is but one definition of negli- tinuous and active operation up to the time of gen~e.~~Negligence as now defined closely re- the harm, and lapse of time.28 Other factors sembles the definition of simple negligence con- have been considered in determining whether tained in old AR 735-11. Consequently, indi- an intervening force is a superseding cause. viduals with either personal or nonpersonal re- Some of these include the fact that the inter- sponsibility for property are held to the same vening force brings about a different kind of standard. Considering the principles in para- harm from that which otherwise would have graph 4-13, AR 735-11, a person may be found resulted from the actor’s negligence, the fact pecuniarily liable if his or her negligence or that the consequence of an intervening force willful misconduct is the proximate cause of any appears extraordinary, the fact that the inter- loss, damage, or destruction of Government vening force is operating independently of any property. The relationship of the person to the situation created by the actor’s negligence or is property is to be considered in determining not a normal result of that negligence, and the whether an act or omission is negligent, but fact that the operation of the intervening force relationship to property no longer determines is due to a third person’s act or omission.29 the standard of negligence to be applied. When applicable, these principles may be used 3 to determine whether negligence or willful mis- Proximate Cause. The definition of proxi- conduct is the proximate cause of a loss for the mate cause has also been changed. The old definition, which used “substantial factor’’ ter- purposes of AR 735-11.30 minology and included presumptions in case of Recognized presumptions also can be applied in losses occurring during willful misconduct and allocating the burden to prove or refute negligence wrongful appr~priation,~~has been replaced or willful misconduct as the proximate cause of a with a simpler definition. Proximate cause is loss. Thus even though in willful misconduct situa- ~ now defined as the “cause that, in a natural and tions the presumption of proximate cause no longer continuous sequence, unbroken by a new cause, exists as a matter of policy,31 other presumptions produces the loss or damage, and without may be used if applicable. For example, The Judge which the loss or damage would not have oc- Advocate General has recognized the doctrine of curred.”25 This definition is taken from DOD res ipsa loquitu.p.32If applicable in a willful rniscon- 7200.10-M which further defines proximate duct situation, it may be applied. Similarly, the cause as “the primary moving cause, or the burden of proof as to apportionment of damages predominating cause, from which the injury between two or more tortfeasors may be upon the follows as a natural, direct, and immediate con- actor who seeks to limit liability on the ground that sequence, and without which it would not have the loss is capable of app~rtionment.~~Normally, of occurred.”2e The change in definition should course, the burden is on the Government to prove not be viewed as a ch in customary legal that negligence of the actor caused the 10s.~Ab- principles to be appli e change is an at- sent application of a proper presumption, proof of tempt to make this legal concept more clearly proximate cause in willful misconduct cases will also understandable for those who must apply it. be upon the G~vernment.~~ As in the past, the new definition does not Application of Article 31, U.C.M.J.36Related to foreclose application of general legal principles determinations of negligence and of possible disci- about proximate cause.27 For example, Re- plinary action is the applicability of Article 31, statement (Second) recognizes certain U.C.M.J., to survey procedures. Under a single considerations as important in determining negligence standard, supervisory personnel may be whether an actor’s conduct is a substantial fac- found pecuniarily liable. AR 735-11 also suggests tor (primarily or predominating cause) in that, where appropriate, disciplinary measures be bringing about harm. These include the number used to enforce supply discipline.37 Because of and importance of other tors which contrib- these factors, questions on application of Article 31 uted to producing the harm, whether the ac- appear likely. The Judge Advocate General has /-- i DA Pam 27-50-75 5 concluded that there is no requirement for a survey circumstances warranL45 Consequently, judge ad- officer to administer an Article 31 warning and that vocates should be prepared to advise approving statements taken in violation of Article 31 may be authorities as to when a survey should be directed. admitted into in administrative proceed- Approving and Appeal Autkm-ities. Under Old ing~.~~Nevertheless, because incriminating admis- AR 735-1 1, appointing authorities generally were sions to survey officers without adequate warning battalion ~ommanders,~~those reviewing and tak- preclude their use in by -martial, TJAG certain final actions were the installation com- further concluded that investigating officers should ing mander~,~~reviewing authorities were MA- be cautioned to advise a military member of his COMS.48 and appeal authority was at Department rights if at anytime during an administrative inves- of the Army.49 This structure is changed by AR tigation he becomes suspected of an offense punish- 735-11. Appointing authorities, defined in para- able by ~ourts-martial.~~Consequently, it may be graph 1-7b1 normally will be battalion commanders. advisable for persons familiar with Article 31 re- However, approving authorities, as provided in quirements to be appointed survey officers when para 1-7c, usually will be special -martial con: willful misconduct is suspected. At the minimum, vening authorities and may be other officers in the all survey officers should be advised of the possible grade of COL, or above, who have been designated applicability of Article 31. such authority by certain general officers.50 These Government Property Lost 01” Damaged Report approving authorities take “initial” action “by au- (GPLD). When no apparent negligence or willful thority of the Secretary of the Army” either to misconduct is involved, loss of government prop- relieve individuals from accountability and liability, erty now may be accounted for by use of the or to approve pecuniary charges.51 Request for GPLD.40 However, there are times when the reconsideration may be acted on by the approving -, GPLD may not be used because a report of survey authority who approved the initial action.52 “Re- is required. For example, a report of survey is quests for reconsideration” are distinguished from J required for any accident involving a military ve- “appeals” which are the responsibility of the appeal hicle when negligence or misappropriation is sus- a~thorities.5~The appeal authorities are either gen- pected, regardless of the amount of damage, or eral court-martial convening authorities having when damage to a military vehicle, regardless of over the command in which the loss cause, exceeds $500.41 If there is non-negligent occurred or other commanders in the grade of 0-7 damage of more than $500 (estimated cost of repair) or above, who have been designated appeal au- to property or if there are other non-negligent thorities pursuant to paragraph 5-6Z1.~~These ap- losses of property, regardless of the value, a GPLD peal authorities take “final” action “by authority of must be initiated.42 If there is non-negligent dam- the Secretary of the Arm~l’.~~ age to property of less than $500, however, .a Legal Review. This reali of over GPLD is not required; instead the commander reports of survey may necessitate similar redis- must sign a statement relating the cause of the onsibility in legal offices because damage.& In determining whether a GPLD is re- both the approval and appellate quired or permissible, care should be taken to authorities may be accomplished in the same staff distinguish “damage” to property from “loss” or judge advocate office. 56 Paragraph 4-23 b, which “destruction” of property in interpreting Chapter 2, 735-11. requires legal review at approving authority level AR before imposition of pecuniary liability, alerts staff Although not specifically identified as such in AR judge advocates to monitor for potential conflicts 735-11, the approving authority for GPLD reports which may result in having the same office advise by definition is the approving authority for reports both approving and appellate authorities5’ For of survey.44 No legal review is required before example, conflicts may arise if report of survey/ approving the GPLD because it may not be used to GPLD approving authorities obtain advice from assess liability. Nevertheless, approving authorities who may be required later to advise illl z must consider the issue of negligence when re- individual against whom either pecuniary or crimi- viewing the GPLD and may direct a survey when nal charges are re~o‘mmended.~~Both attorneys DA Pam 27-50-75 6 and approving authorities should be aware of and Memorandum For Assistant Secretary of take steps to avoid potential conflicts. Clearly de- (Comptroller) from the Assistant Secretary of the lineating courts-martial and accountability respon- Army (IL&FM), subject: Report of Audit Survey and Special Inspection of Management and Accountability sibility of attorneys should help to preclude ethical of Army Material, Jan. 30, 1978 (attached to conflicts. DAJA-AL 1977/6362, 29 Dec 77).Deviations requested pertain to the standard of negligence, limitation on Legal officers should be prepared to advise com- liability, level of approval and appeal authorities, and manders about proper designation of approval and changes in use of cash collection and report of survey appeal authorities pursuant to paragraphs 1-7c(2), forms. 4-21 and 5-6. Such designations may not only aid in Memorandum for the Assistant Secretary of the Army avoiding conflict of interest problems, but also (IL&FM), from the Assistant Secretary of Defense expedite processing of accountability documents. (C), subject: Report of Audit Survey and Special In- spection Management Accountability of Army Mate- Suggested Changes. The DAF'ATAF is collecting riel, Jul. 10, 1978 (copy attached to DAJA-AL 1978/ information to correct mistakes and clarify proce- 3811, 26 Jul 78 [hereinafter cited as DAJA-AL 1978 dures contained in AR 735-11. The fist change to 1978/3311]). the regulation should be prepared within a year. Id Corrections or suggestions for clarification may be lo AR 735-11, sup7a note 1, at para. 1-2. addressed to HQDA, ATTN: DALO-ZXT, Penta- gon, Washington, D.C. 20310 (Phone: Autovon l1 Id. at Dara. 1-7%. 2243238 or Commercial 202-694-3238).

FOOTNOTES / Army Reg. No. 735-11, Accounting for Lost, Dam-

Letter to the Chief of Staff, United States Army, from

the Office of the Inspector General (DAIG-IS), sub- l6 37 U.S.C. 1007 (c). See DAJA-AL 1977/6194, 6 Dec 77. ject: Report of Audit Survey Special Inspection of Management and Accountability of Army Materiel, l7 See DNA-AL 197813811, supr Oct. 6, 1977. AR 735-11, supra note 1, para Id. The report concludes that accountability had been is noted that para 5-8b, AR 735-11, provides that lost for about one percent of the property of units requests for remission resulting from pecuniary sampled. Statistically this amounted to a loss t changes raised on reports of survey normally will not $118.5 million when extended to the entire act be considered favorably and should not be submitted. For losses resulting in Reports of l9 Instructional Semi t of liability against individuals amounted to 8.2 percent of the value of the loss for the

4-2, AR 735-11, s

21 Army Reg. 735-11, Letter from the Vice Chief of Staff, United States and Destroyed Property, para. 1-7r (May 1, 1974) Army, subject: Management and Accountability of [hereinafter cited as Old AR 735-111. Army Materiel, Oct. 11, 1977 (attached to DAJA-AL 197715799, supra note 2). 22 Id. at para's 1-7ac and 4-18.

Letter from Office of the Adjutant General (DALO- 23 AR 735-11, supra note 1, at para's 1-70 and z. ZXT), subject: Department of Army Property Accoun- tability Task Force, Oct. 25, 1977 (attached to 24 Old AR 735-11j supra note at para.

DAJA-AL 197715799, supra note 2). 25 AR 735-11, supra note 1, at para. 1-7w.

See DOD 7200.10-M, Department of Defense Ac- 26 DOD 7200.10-M supra note 6, A/, >I

re- 27 See my Pam. No. "tyative Law Handbook, para. 5-58(2) (Oct. 15, 1973). ‘i, DA Pam 27-50-75 7

28 Restatement, Second, Torts, Sec. 433. 39 Id.

29 Id. at Sec. 442. 40 AR 735-11, supra note 1, para. 2-3

41 Id. at para’s 2-5 and 2-2Of. 29 Id. at Sec. 442. See also sections 447 and 448 as to how negligent intervening or criminal acts may affect pro- 42 Id. at para. 2-4b(2). ximate cause (e.g., of a person with nonpersonal re- sponsibility). 43 Id. at para. 2-4b(3).

44 30 See AR 735-11, supra note 1, para. 4-13. Id. at para. 1-7e.

45 Id. at para’s 2-18, 2-19, and 2-20b. 31 The presumption in para. 1-72, Old AR 735-11, supra note 21, about proximate cause being presumed in 46 Old AR 735-11, supra note 21, Ch. 4. cases of willful misconduct has been deleted from the new regulation. 47 Id. at Ch. 5.

32 DAJA-AL 1976/5863, 22 Nov 66. See also Restate- 48 Id. at Ch. 6. ment, Second, Torts, Sec. 328D; McCormick, LAW OF 49 Id. at para. 10-6 EVIDENCE, 613 (1954). See also JAGA 1967/4364, 25 Sep 76. 50 AR 735-11, supra note 1, at para. 1-7c.

33 Restatement, Second, Torts, Sec. 433B. 51 Id. at para. 4-23c.

34 Id. at Sec. 3288 52 Id. at para. 5-4a.

35 See AR 735-11, supra note 1, para 4-13. Restatement, 53 Id. / Second, Torts, Sec. 435B, which pertains to measuring damages, infers that the degree of moral wrong in 43 Id. acting may be considered in determining whether an s5 at para. 5-6b. actor is liable for resulting unintended harm. Id. \ s6 See Id., at para’s 4-23 and 5-7. 36 U.C.M.J. Art. 31 requires warnings about self- incrimination for military personnel suspected of of- 5’ See ROBIE, TEACHING OR PROFESSIONAL RE- fenses. SPO N S I B I L ITY T O F E D E R AL G OV E R N ME N T

37 See AR 735-11, supra note 1, para 1.8~and app. A. ATTORNEYS: THE UNEASY PERCEPTION, 80 MIL. L. REV. 29 (1978). 38 DAJA-AL 1969/3370, 31 Jan 69. See also, DAJA-AL I 1964/4220, 10 July 64. 58 AR 735-11, supra note 1, para’s 4-10 and 5-4d.

Law Day 1979 i

A subject of special importance to every origin of rights? Is t een American has been selected as the theme for and legal rights? Is the remedy the twenty-second annual nationwide celebra- ing rights judicial, legislative or tion of Law Day U.S.A. on May 1, 1979. It is society have rights as well as the “Our Changing Rights.” individual? Can or should responsibilities be divorced from rights? The theme directs attention to the many changes which have, and are, taking place in Judge advocate officers are invited to par- individual rights. Many matters are being liti- ticipate in conveying the spirit of Law Day to gated today that simply did not go to court both the military and civilian communities. twenty, or even ten, years ago. Many of these Staff Judge Advocates are urged to designate matters fall in the expanding area of “rights.” a Law Day Chairperson and to take all neces- sary steps toward supporting the 1979 Law The Law Day 1979 theme will give the , and electorate an opportunity to w give thoughtful consideration to these impor- To assist with Law Day preparation, the tant questions: What are rights? What is the American Bar Association has made available DA Pam 27-50-75 ,e 8 its 1979 Planning Guide and Program Manual. for orders in the continental United States is 9 This booklet can be obtained at no expense April. from the American Bar Association, Adjunct In order to be considered for the ABA Committee on Law Day, 77 South Wacker Award of Merit for outstanding observance of Drive, Chicago, IL 60606. Telephone (312 Law Day, an after-action report must be for- 621-9248 or 9249. The planning guide contains warded to The Judge Advocate General’s an order form for promotional materials which School, ATTN: JAGS-DDL, Charlottesville, may be obtained with local funds. The deadline VA 22901, not later than 10 May 1979.

TJAGSA Video and Audio Catalogue

An eight minute color video tape has re- inch video casette was designed for viewing by cently been added to the TJAGSA tape non-lawyers and would be appropriate for catalogue. The tape concerns personal liability showing at Commander’s Call. The tape is of commanders in civil litigation and is shown available through a tape dubbing service. Re- to commanders attending the Senior Officers’ quests and tapes should be forwarded to The Legal Orientation (SOLO) Course at the Judge Advocate General’s School, U.S. Army, School and the Pre-Command Course (PCC) at ATTN: Television Operations, Charlottesville, the U.S. Army Command and General Staff VA 22901. College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. This %

J Labor Law Item Labor and Civilian Personnel Law Office, OTJAG

Military Union Problems Staff Judge Advocate should also be familiar with the reporting requirements of paragraph All Staff Judge Advocates are reminded that 8, AR 600-80. Any incident involving prohib- there are three primary reference sources for ited military union activity is to be reported to military union problems. They are the , Headquarters, Department of the Army 10 U.S.C. 975, enacted on 18 October 1978; (DAPE-HRL) by priority message with in- the Department of Defense Directive 1354.1, formation copies to intermediate headquarters. dated 6 October 1977; and AaR 600-80, dated If there are any questions concerning military 15 January 1978. Before an opinion on any unions or related activities, contact the Labor issue pertaining to mili and Civilian Personnel Law Office, Autovon all three references sh 225-9300 or 225-9476.

Reserve Affairs Items Reseiwe Affairs Department, TJAGSA

1. Law School Liaison Program students interested in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps. Under this program, Reserve The Law School Liasison Program was es- Component judge advocate officers voluntarily tablished five years ago and continues to‘pto- act as the Corps’ liaison at law schools vide a source of information for law school throughout the country. These officers are ~ 1 DA Pam 27-50-75 9 available to provide interested law students The program provides an excellent opportu- with pertinent information concerning assign- nity for Reserve Component judge advocate ment with the Judge Advocate General’s officers to participate in a vitally important Corps, both active duty and Reserve Compo- Corps activity. Reserve involvement in the re- nent. Material is distributed by the Director, cruiting of new judge advocate officers brings Reserve Affairs Department to each liaison beneficial results to both the Active Army and officer. This material provides him with infor- the Reserve Components. mation necessary to answer the wide range of The following list contains the law schools inquiries which he can expect to receive. which are presently served by a liaison officer. Reserve judge advocate officers who wish to Since the program has been in effect, the assist in this program at other schools, or who number of participants has increased to 48 would like additional information, should con- volunteers who represent the Corps as liaison tact the Director, Reserve Affairs Depart- to 75 law schools in 27 states, the District of ment, The Judge Advocate General’s School, Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.

RESERVE COMPONENT LAW SCHOOL LIAISON OFFICERS

Institution Liuison Officer and Telephone Address Number h., ARIZONA Tempe Arizona State University CPT Don Zillman 602-965-7491 College of Law College of Law, ASU Tempe, AZ 85281

ARKANSAS Fayetteville University of Arkansas School MAJ John C. Hawkins, Jr. 214-792-8631 of Law P.O. Box 4969 Texarkana, TX 75501

Litt 1 e Rock University of Arkansas School MAJ John C. Hawkins, Jr. 214-792-8631 of Law P.O. Box 5969 Texarkana, TX 75501

CALIFORNIA Anaheim Pepperdine University School MAJ John L. Moriarity 2 13-988-8222 of Law 14123 Victory Boulevard Van Nuys, CA 91401

Davis University of California Law CPT John A. Dougherty 016-444-0520 School (Davis) District Attorney’s Office Room 301, Court House 720 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 DA Pam 27-50-75 f 10 Institution Liaison Officer and Telephone Address Number Los Angeles University of California Law CPT James L. Racusin 213-787-3350 School (UCLA) Los Angeles County Public Defenders Office, Room 106 6230 Sylmar Avenue Van Nuys, CA 91401 Loyola University of Los CPT Michael Shapiro 213-530-7933 Angeles School of Law 23150 Crenshaw Boulevard Torrance, CA 90505 Southwestern University CPT Andrew D. Amerson 213-736-2200 School of Law , Attorney General's Office 800 Tishman Building 3580 Wilshire Boulevard I, Los Angeles, CA 90010 Sacramento McGeorge Law School CPT John A. Dougherty 916-444-0520 I District Attorney's Office 720 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 San Diego University of San Diego LTC David M. Gill 714-236-4006 School of Law 220 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92103 San Fra7icisco Hastings College of Law MAJ John G. Milano 415-4414410 Milano & Cimmet Civic Center Building- Polk Street Francisco, CA 94102

FLORIDA b Tal Iahassee Florida State University Law COL Bjarne B. Andersen, 914-488-9110 ' School . j Jr . 2337 Limerick Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 ILLINOIS Champaign University of Illinois School of LTC Richard H. Mills 217452-3075 Law Circuit Court

I 8th Judicial Circuit t Cass County Court House Virginia, IL 62691 Chicago University of Chicago School LTC Michael I. Spak 312-782-6616

of Law A Chicago-Kent College of /' \ DA Pam 27-50-75 11 Institution Liaison Officer and Telephone Address Number

DePaul University College of Law Law 77 South Wacker Drive Loyola University College of Chicago, IL 60606 Law Northwestern University College of Law hool of Law CPT Michael Cahill 312-542-2900 States Attorney Office 2600 South California Avenue Chicago, IL 60608

IOWA Des Moines 515-283-2241 Voorhis s and Loan

206 Sixth-Avenue Moines, IA 50309

2 Iowa City Edmund E. Barry 319-627-4797 112 112 East 3rd Street West Liberty, IA 52776 f KENTUCKY Lexington University of Kentucky CPT Timothy R. Futrell 502-522-3022 College of Law P.O. Box 307 Cadiz, KY 42211 Louisville CPT James F. Gordon, Jr. 502-683-3535 Barlett, MeCarroll & Nunley 302 Masonic Building

,\ P.O. Box 925 Owensboro, KY 42301 LOUISIANA f Baton Rouge Louisiana State University COL Harold L. Savoie 3 18-235-7371 Law School P.O. Box 2881 Southern University School of Lafayette, LA 70501 Law LOUISIANA I

New Orleans Loyola University School of ' COL Harold L. Savoie 318-235-7371 Law I P.O. Box 2881 Tulane % 'Law DA Pam 27-50-75 12 Institution Liaison Officer and Telephone Address Number -. MAINE Port1and University of Maine School of LTC Peter A. Anderson 207-947-0303 Law Anderson & Norton 61 Main Street Bangor, ME 04401 MARYLAND Baltimore Unive'rsity of Maryland Law MAJ William S. Little 301-539-3545 School Stark & Little University of Baltimbre 1500 Tower Building School of Law Baltimore & Guilford Streets Baltimore, MD 21202

MASSACHUSETTS 7 I Boston New England Schooliof Law CPT Kevin J. O'Dea 6 17-494-406 1 Boston College Law School Middlesex City DA Office Suffolk Universitv Law School Cambridge, MA 02138 Boston University ! Cambridge Harvard Law School CPT Kevin J. O'Dea 617-494-4061 Middlesex City DA Office F Cambridge, MA 02138 MICHIGAN U CPT Frederick J. Amrose 313-961-0473 16075 Kinross Birmingham, MI 48009 Detroit University of Detroit School CPT Frederick J. Amrose 313-961-0473 of Law 1732 Buhl Building Detroit, MI 48226 0 Wayne State University Law MAJ Estes D. Brockman 3 13-256-2519 21519 Virginia Drive Southfield, MI 48076 Lansing 1 of Law 1LT John Hays 517-3724220 Farhat, Burns & Story, P.C. Thomas More Building 417 Seymour Avenue Lansing, MI 48933 MINNESOTA Minneapolis University of Minnesota Law MAJ Thomas J. Lyons 612-291-161 1

/c DA Pam 27-50-75 13 Institution Liaison Officer and Telephone Address Number

St. Paul William Mitchell College of MAJ Thomas J. Lyons 612-291-1611 Law 580 Northwestern Hamline University School of National Bank Law St. Paul, MN 55101

MISSISSIPPI University University of Mississippi COL Aaron S. Condon 601-232-7421 School of Law School of Law University of Mississippi University, MS 38677

NEBRASKA Lincoln University of Nebraska Law CPT Walter E. Zink I1 402-474-1075 School

NEW HAMPSHIRE Manchester tein 802-728-9788 r,

NEW JERSEY #. Newark 2 063

J 15 and John F. Kennedv

adelphia, PA 19102

;, MAJ James B. 20 1-494-8404 Smith & Dembl 266 Lake Avenue

Seton Hall University School LTC Joseph S. Ziccardi 215-564-1063 of Law Suite 710, Two Penn Center Plaza 15 and John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19102

NEW YORK i AI bany Union COL Thomas J. Newman 914-357-2660 ",. ", 99 Washington Avenue Suffern, NY 10901 DA Pam 27-50-75 14 Institution Liaison Officer and Te1 ephone Address Number Brook 1 yn Brooklyn Law School MAJ James E. O’Donnell, 212-834-5000 Jr.

’ District Attorney’s Office Kings County Municipal Building Brooklyn, NY 11210 Buffalo State University of New York WO Joseph G. Kihl 716-825-0850 at Buffalo 3141 South Park Avenue Lackawanna, NY 14218 Hempstead, Hofstra University School of COL Thomas J. Newman 914-357-2660 Law 99 Washington Avenue Suffern, NY 10901 Jamaica St. John’s Uni School COL Thomas J. Newman 914-357-2660 - ofLaw 99 Washington Avenue Suffern, NY 10901 New Y Columbia University School of COL Thomas J. Newman 914-357-2660 Law 99 Washington Avenue Suffern, NY 10901 ,/ Columbia University School of MAJ Stephen Davis 2 12-422-1550 Law 67 Wall Street New York, NY 10005 Fordham Unive School of COL Thomas J. Newman 914-357-2660 Law 99 Washington Avenue Suffern, NY 10901 AJ Basil N. Ap 212-726-7070 2573 Steinway Street Astoria, NY 11103 NORTH DAKOTA Grand Forks akota CPT Murray G. Sagsveen ’701-224-2200 Office

Bismarck, ND 58505 OHIO Columbus Ohio State University Law COL Charles E. Brant 614-22 1-212 1 School The Midland Building 250 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 COL Charles E. Brant 6 14-221-2121 The Midland Building 250 East Broad Street K Columbus, Ohio 43215 1

DA Pam 27-50-75 15 Institution Liaison Officer and Telephone Address Number

OKLAHOMA Norman Oklahoma City University LTC Stewart Hunter 405-236-2727 School of Law Juvenile Judge Oklahoma City Court ' House Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Oklahoma City University of Oklahoma LTC Charles Elder 405-527-2137 College of Law Professional Building Box 667 Purcell, OK 73080 Tulsa University of Tulsa College of CPT William W. Hood, Jr. 918-583-5825 Law Center Office Building Tulsa, OK 73101

0REGO.N I Eugene University of Oregon School od of Law 305 Cascade ""\ Hood River, OR 97031 Salem Willamette University School od 503-386-1811 of Law 305 Cascade Ho r , 1

PENNSYLVANIA Carlisle Dickinson School 215-564-1063

Two Penn Center Plaza 15 and John F. Kennedy Blvd Philadelphia, PA 19102 ,I

f, Temple University School of LTC Joseph S. Ziccardi 215-564-1063 Law Suite 710, Two Penn Center Plaza 15 and John F. Kennedy Blvd Philadelphia, PA 19102 Villanova Villanova University School of LTC Joseph S. Ziccardi 2 15-564-1063 Law Suite 710, Two Penn Center Plaza

. :. .. . ~ 15 and John F. Kennedy Blvd Philadelphia, PA 19102 DA Pam 27-50-75 I 16 Institution Liaison Officer and Telephone Address Number

PUERTO RICO Ponce Catholic University of Puerto CAPT Charles A. Cuprill 809-842-0379 Rico Law School 15th L URB Jardines FA Ponce, Puerto Rico 00731 Sun Juan University of Puerto Rico MAJ Otto J. Riefkohl I1 809-763-3313 Law School P.O. Box 4867 Inter-American University Old San Juan, Puerto Rico Law School 00936

TEXAS Austin University of Texas Law MAJ John M. Compere 5 12-225-3031 School 2000 Frost Bank Tower San Antonio, TX 78205 Da L Las Southern Methodist CPT Evan Thomas 214-330-3642 University School of Law 3922 South Walton Walker Dallas, TX 75222 Houston Bates College of Law COL John Jay Douglass 713-749-1571 (Ret) /- College of Law University of Houston Houston, TX 77004 Lubbock Texas Tech University School CPT David C. Cummins 806-742-3785 of Law School of Law, Texas Tech University P.O. Box 4030 I Lubbock, TX 79409 Sun Antonio sity School MAJ John M. Compere 512-225-3031 2000 Frost Bank Tower San Antonio, TX 78205

VERMONT f South RoyaLton Vermont Law School MAJ Richard L. Burstein 802-728-9788 305 Main Street Randolph, VT 05060

VIRGINIA Lexington Washington and Lee College CPT Lee B. Liggett 703-951-6293 of Law Office of the General Counsel nd State University Blacksburg, VA 24061 1

DA Pam 27-50-75 17

WISCONSIN Madison University of Wisconsin Law LTC Richard Z. Kabaker 608-257-718 1 School P.O. Box 2038 Madison, WI 53706 Milwaukee Marquette University Law LTC Richard Z. Kabaker 608-257-7181 School P.O. Box 2038 Madison, WI 53706 WASHINGTON, D.C. American University Law LTC W. Peyton George 202-293-5325 School 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 350 Washington, D.C. 20006 George Washington COL Francis S. Elliott 202-566-9653 University National Law 12th and Pennsylvania Center Avenue Washington, D.C. Georgetown University Law COL Stanley J. Glod 202-467-5424 Center 1735 K Street N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20006

2. Mobilization Designee Vacancies Mobilization Designation Assignment (DA A number of installations have recently had Form 2976) to The Judge Advocate General’s new mobilization designee positions approved School, ATTN: Lieutenant Colonel William and applications may be made for these and Carew, Reserve Affairs Department, Char- other vacancies which now exist. Interested JA lottesville, Virginia 22901. Current Positions Reservists should submit Application for are as follows:

GRD PARA LIN SEQ POSITION AGENCY CITY CPT 03A 02 01 Counsel lOlst ABN Div Ft Campbell CPT 03B 04 04 Trail Counsel 5th Inf Ft Polk CPT 03B 05 02 Defense Counsel USA Garrison F t Devens CPT 03C 02 01 Asst SJA 10lst ABN Div Ft Campbell CPT 03D 01 01 Asst JA Claims Officer USA Garrison Ft Devens CPT 03B 01 04 Defense Counsel lOlst ABN Div Ft Campbell CPT 03A 02 02 Trial Counsel lOlst ABN Div Ft Campbell CPT 03B 01 02 Defense Counsel 10lst ABN Div Ft Campbell CPT 03B 04 03 Trial Counsel 5th Inf Ft Polk CPT 03B 04 02 Trial Counsel 5th Inf Ft Polk CPT 03B 03 02 Trial Counsel USA Garrison Ft Devens CPT 03B 03 02 Def Counsel 5th Inf Ft Polk CPT 03B 03 03 Def Counsel 5th Inf Ft Polk DA Pam 27-50-75 18 GRD PARA LIN SEQ POSITION AGENCY CITY CPT 03B 02 04 Defense Counsel lOlst ABN Div Ft Campbell CPT 03B 02 01 Defense Counsel 10lst ABN Div Ft Campbell CPT 03A 02 04 Trial Counsel lOlst ABN Div Ft Campbell CPT 03A 02 03 Trial Counsel lOlst ABN Div Ft Campbell CPT 03B 03 01 Defense Counsel 5th Inf Ft Polk CPT 03B 01 03 Defense Counsel 10lst ABN Div Ft Campbell CPT 03C 06 01 Admin Law Off USA Garrison Ft Devens CPT 03D 05 01 Asst SJA-DC USA Garrison Ft Stewart CPT 03B 02 03 Defense Counsel lOlst ABN Div Ft Campbell CPT 03E 03 01 Asst SJA USA Garrison Ft Stewart CPT 52B 03 01 Asst SJA-DC USA Garrison Ft Stewart CPT 03B 02 02 Defense Counsel 10lst ABN Div Ft Cambell CPT 03D 05 02 Asst SJA - DC USA Garrison Ft Stewart CPT 03B 04 01 Trial Counsel 5th Inf Ft Polk CPT 52C 01 01 Asst SJA USA Garrison Ft Stewart CPT 62B 05 01 Asst Admin Law Off USA Forces Cmd Ft McPherson CPT 62C 05 01 Asst Crim Law Off USA Forces Cmd Ft McPherson CPT 03B 03 04 Def Counsel 5th Inf Ft Polk CPT 50C 04 01 Asst Crim Law Off USA Forces Cmd Ft McPherson LTC 62F 03 01 Labor Re1 Atty USA Forces Cmd Ft McPherson LTC 03 01 01 Staff JA 10lst ABN Div Ft Campbell LTC 03 02 01 SJA 5th Inf Ft Polk MAJ 03A 01 01 Ch Trial Counsel lOlst ABN Div Ft Campbeli MAJ 03C 01 01 Asst SJA 5th Inf Ft Polk MAJ 03C 01 02 Asst SJA 5th Inf Ft Polk MAJ 03B 02 01 Ch Trial Counsel 5th Inf Ft Polk MAJ 03B 01 01 Ch Def Counsel 5th Inf Ft Polk MAJ 03B 01 01 Ch Def Counsel 10lst ABN Div Ft Campbell MAJ 03E 01 01 Chief USA Garrison Ft Stewart MAJ 03C 01 01 Ch Admin Law Br lOlst ABN Div F t Campbell MAJ 03C 02 01 Ch Admin Law Off USA Garrison Ft Devens MAJ 62E 03 01 Asst Res Aff Off USA Forces Cmd Ft McPherson MAJ 03C 01 01 Ch Leg Asst Off USA Garrison Ft Devens MAJ 03B 01 01 Ch Mil Br USA Garrison Ft Devens MAJ 62D 04 01 Fiscal Law Off USA Forces Cmd Ft McPherson MAJ 62C 04 01 Asst Crim Law Off USA Forces Cmd Ft McPherson Additional positions will be approved in the near future. Judge Advocates wishing to be considered for any available Mob Des position should so annotate DA Form 2976.

JUDICIARY NOTES U.S.Army Judiciary ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE tinue to report to Regulatory Law Office Reports to Regulatory Law Office (JALS-RL) the existence of any action or pro- ceeding involving communications, transporta- In accordance with AR 27-40, all judge advo- tion, or utility services and environmental mat- ~ cates and legal advisors are reminded to con- ters which affect the Army. DA Pam 27-50-75 19 As reflected in message of 13 Jan 79, current should be noted that for a special court-martial address for Regulatory Law Office is sentence that does not involve an approved USALSA, ATTN: JALS-RL, Falls Church, bad-conduct discharge, the decision to vacate VA 22041. Current commercial telephone the suspension of any portion of that sentence number is area code 202-756-2015, AUTOVON may be made by a special court-martial con- 289-2015. vening authority. Article 72, Uniform Code of . JUDICIARY NOTE It appears that prudence dictates a hearing Vacation of Suspended Sentences before a competent court-martial convening au- thority in any case in which it is sought to va- Several recent cases indicate that authorities cate the suspension of any portion of a sentence seeking to vacate the suspension of sentences by special or general court-martial. While the imposed by courts-martial are not considering final decision to vacate the suspension may be carefully the strictures of United States v. taken by a convening authority superior to the Bingham, 3 M.J. 119 (C.M.A. 1977). one who held the hearing, care should be taken Article 72, Uniform Code of Military Justice, that the authority making the decision provides requires that the special court-martial conven- written reasons for the decision. This may be ing authority with jurisdiction over a proba- done by adopting, in toto or in part, written tioner hold a hearing before vacating any sen- reasons set forth by the authority who con- tence by special court-martial which as ap- ducted the hearing; however, such adoption proved includes a bad-conduct discharge or any should be explicit and in writing. sentence by general court-martial. A similar requirement is established in paragraph 2-36, -- DIGESTS OF ARTICLE 69, UCMJ, APPLI- AR 27-10, for the vacation of any suspended CATIONS sentence to confinement. Further, the United States Court of Military Appeals has suggested 1. In Eubank, SPCM 1978/4269, The Judge that a hearing is constitutionally required as a Advocate General considered a contention that predicate for vacation of the suspension of any the court-martial was without jurisdiction to sentence emanating from “a proceeding fairly try the accused because the convening author- termed a criminal trial . . . .” United States v. ity did not personally detail the military judge Bingham, supra, 3 M.J. at 122, n.7. or counsel in accordance with the holding of United States v. Newcomb, 5 M.J. 4 (C.M.A. The Bingham Court also set forth general 1978). The applicant presented an affidavit requirements for the conduct of proceedings to from his trial defense counsel in which it was vacate the suspension of sentences. Among asserted that the military judge, the trial coun- those requirements were the following: the sel, and the defense counsel were all “selected” special court-martial convening authority (un- by persons other than the convening authority. less individually disqualified for some reason) No statements from the convening authority or must personally conduct the hearing authorized the staff judge advocate, the two persons by Article 72 or its equivalent, and the author- uniquely situated to know the facts, were pre- ity who makes the final decision to vacate the sented, and there was no averment that the af- suspension must execute a written statement fiant was privy to discussions between the con- as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for vening authority and his staff judge advocate. vacating the suspension. The Bingham Court had no difficulty, however, with the proposition It was determined that the applicant had that under Article 72 the hearing function failed to carry his burden to “pierce” the com- (exercised by the special court-martial con- mand line. Further, the contention was affirm- vening authority) could be separate from the atively established to be without factual foun- %> final decision making function (exercised by the dation by a copy of a document existing dehors general court-martial convening authority). It the record. The document, dated prior to the rc DA Pam 27-50-75 20 date of trial and signed by the convening au- Article 134 is on its fact gender neutral. It thority, expressly detailed the military judge, prohibits all conduct that is likely to bring the the trial counsel, and the defense counsel to service into disrepute or is directly and palpa- serve in the Eubank case. Relief was denied. bly prejudicial to good order and discipline. United States v. Sadinsky, 14 U.S.C.M.A. 563, 34 C.M.R. 343 (1964). Both males and females 2. In Robinson, SPCM 197814283, The Judge may violate Article 134 and both may be vic- Advocate General denied relief from a finding tims of violations of that Article. Since both of guilty as to a violation of Article 134, men and women can violate the statute and be U.C.M.J., by orally communicating to SP4 L, a subject to like punishment, no denial of equal female not his wife or other family relation, protection would result even if only women certain indecent language. were protected by the statute. See United The evidence at trial established that SP4 L States v. Green, 554 F. 2d 372 (9th Cir. 1977); and PV2 R were performing duties as charges United States v. Garrett, 521 F. 2d 444 (8th of quarters at a dental clinic on post when the Cir. 1975); United States v. Caesar, 368 F. alleged offense occurred. SP4 L was married, Supp. 368 (E.D. Wise. 19731, af7'd sub. nom. but not to PV2 R who knew that she was mar- United States v. Harden, 519 F. 2d 1405 (7th ried. During the night while both were still on Cir. 1975). duty but had retired for the night, PV2 R Since the accused was charged with com- communicated the alleged language to SP4 L municating indecent and not insulting lan- who indignantly rejected PV2 R's proposition. guage, he did not have standing to challenge With regard to his conviction, PV2 R con- the inclusion of insulting language in the pro- tended, inter alia, that the offense of com- criptions of Article 134. See Parker v. Levy, / munication of indecent language to a female is 427 U.S. 733 (1974). Further, military unconstitutional as a violation of the equal pro- requires that the language communicated be tection component of the due process clause of actually obscene for Article 134 to be violated. the Fifth-Amendment to the United States United States v. Linyear, 3 M.J. 1027 . He further contended that the (N.C.M.R. 1977). proscription of indecent, insulting and obscene The military definition of obscenity comports language under Article 134, U.C.M.J., is over- with the definition of obscenity in Miller v. broad because it encompasses both protected California, supra. See United States v. Tindoll, and unprotected speech. 16 U.S.C.M.A. 194, 36 C.M.R. 350 (1966); He also contended that the military definition United States v. Linyear, supra; United States of obsecenity does not comport with the re- v. Wainwright, 42 C.M.R. 997 (A.F.C.M.R. quirements of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 1970), aff'd, 43 C.M.R. 23 (C.M.A. 1970); (1973). United States v. Simmons, 27 (CR 654 (A.B.R. 1959), pet. denied, 27 C.M.R. 512 (C.M.A. With regard to the equal protection conten- 1959). tion, a review of the case law indicates that both males and females can be the victims of Under both Miller and the military cases the the offense of communicating indecent or language communicated must appeal to the pu- obscene language. See United States v. rient interest and must describe sexual conduct Jackson, 12 C.M.R. 403 (A.B.R. 1953), pet. de- in a manner that exceeds contemporary com- nied, 13 C.M.R. 142 (C.M.A.1953), where the munity standards of decency. Military cases victim was an enlisted man. Communication of recognize that the motive and purpose of the such language to either male or female serv- speaker are important. icemembers may in appropriate circumstances

be prejudicial to good order and discipline or 3. In Roberts, SUMCM 197814287, The Judge ~ service discrediting. Advocate General noted that the record of a \ DA Pam 27-50-75 21 summary court-martial trial did not contain any cused’s superior commissioned officer). It was notation that the accused was advised prior to determined that the so-called defense of dives- trial of his right to consult with independent titure, which has been recognized as a defense counsel nor any notation to the effect that the to the offense of assaulting a superior commis- accused did or did not consult with independent sioned officer, was not a defense to the offense counsel prior to making his decision not to ob- of disobedience of a lawful order, at least not ject to trial by summary court-martial. Such where the alleged misconduct of the officer ex- notations should be made. See HQDA tended only to his choice of words and mode of (DAJA-CL) message 111230 Nov 77. address. The defense evidence showed only that the officer repeated his order after a few It was determined that the absence of such seconds and “showed hostility in his facial ex- notations was not a prejudicial or jurisdictional pression and voice tone.” Relief was denied. error. In this case, it was clearly established by matters dehors the record of trial that the ac- 5. In Pohlman, SPCM 1978/4318, The Judge cused had been informed of his right to consult Advocate General considered a contention that with counsel. Further, it was determined that the evidence was insufficient to support the the mandate of United States v. Booker, 5 M.J. findings of guilty as to a period of AWOL. The 238 (C.M.A. 19771, was an exclusionary rule accused had been charged with a period of and not a substantive requirement. Relief was AWOL of approximately seven-and-a-half denied. months duration (from 2 August 1977 until 16 March 1978). The military judge, trying the 4. In Ned, SPCM 1978/4310, The Judge Advo- case alone, found him guilty of a period of

‘4 cate General considered a contention that the AWOL covering, approximately, the last two military judge had erroneously denied a motion weeks of the alleged period (or from 1 March embodying a defense request for a witness. A 1978 until 15 March 1978). It was contended on request for the witness had been submitted “appeal” that there was no basis in fact for prior to trial; efforts to locate the witness (a finding 1 March 1978 to be the inception date civilian who had left Germany, the situs of the for the period of AWOL. offense and of trial, fogthe United States after The accused had received orders transferring the occurrence of the offenses) proved fruitless. him from one battalion to another at the same The Government has no general duty to lo- military reservation. He had in fact “signed in” cate witnesses for the defense. Further, there at the “new” battalion. Some procedural dif- was no authority to subpoena the witness under ficulties arose necessitating that new orders be the circumstances of the case; the appearance cut with a new reporting date; the accused was of the witness at trial in Germany was depend- informed of this. New orders were in fact cut ent upon her willingness to so appear, and the on 29 July 1977, amending the accused’s re- defense made no showing of such willingness. porting date to 1 August 1977. There was no Accordingly, it was determined that the mili- evidence that a copy of the new orders was tary judge did not error in denying the defense ever delivered to the accused. motion. It was also determined that, in any The evidence was in conflict as to what the event, there was no fair risk of prejudice under accused did during the ensuing seven-and-a- the circumstances of the case. half months. The defense attempted to paint a The contention was also made that the mili- picture of daily attempts by the accused to lo- tary judge erred in failing to give a defense- cate his orders and of regular performance of requested instruction on an issue of divestiture duties by the accused at his “old” battalion. of rank which the defense argued had been The Government, on the other hand, attempted raised by the evidence in connection with the to paint a picutre of the accused tending to his \ offenses (three specifications of willful dis- own affairs and making no attempt to ascertain obedience of a lawful command from the ac- his place of assignment. On balance, it ap- ,- DA Pam 27-50-75

peared that the accused was in both battalion member say that the convening authority areas at various times and that the accused did “won’t be satisfied with that.” make some effort to ascertain his status, but In Putnam, the trial defense counsel sub- that his performance of military duties and mitted an affidavit to the effect that several quest for his orders were considerably less dili- court-martial members told him that an initial gent and regular than was depicted by the ballot resulted in a finding of not guilty, a voice defense. vote was then taken by which it was deter- The military judge properly found that the mined to take a second ballot, and the second accused had an honest and reasonable mistake ballot resulted in a finding of guilty. of fact as of 2 August 1977 concerning his as- It was determined that the general rule that signment to the “new” battalion. He also prop- affidavits should not be accepted to impeach a erly found that the mistake of fact eventually court’s , unless they relate to extrane- ceased to be honest and reasonable. The day of ous influences, should govern these cases. No 1 March 1978 was properly selected as the in- such extraneous influence was apparent in ception date because it was the first day as to either Putnum or Apodaca. which the military judge had no reasonable doubt that the mistake of fact eventually To the extent that the remark allegedly made ceased to be honest and reasonable. The day of in Apodaca might be viewed as representing 1 March 1978 was properly selected as the in- extraneous influence exercised by the conven- ception date because it was the first day as to ing authority, the accused’s affidavit, taken at which the military judge had no reasonable face value, was insufficient to establish such doubt that the accused was not acting pursuant misconduct. Relief was denied. to an honest and reasonable mistake of fact. /- The selection of 1 March 1978 was proper be- 7. In Syzyder, SPCM 1978/4331, The Judge Ad- cause there was evidence of record that the ac- vocate General considered a contention that a cused had then ceased to make any significant chain of custody document and laboratory re- inquiries concerning his status; that the “old” port pertaining to a bag of marihuana were im- battalion was then packing for a move from properly received into evidence. The applicant CONUS to Germany; and that the accused objected to the exhibits on several bases. knew that the “old” battalion’s departure was imminent and that he would not be going. First, he argued that the chain of custody document was prepared principally for prosecu- (The termination date of the period of AWOL tion; he relied upon the testimony of a Govern- was properly found by the court-martial to be ment witness that “the form is used to poten- 15 March 1978 because the accused’s “new” tially prosecute.’’ It was determined that such commander spoke to the accused on that date testimony was not conclusive and that the evi- and told him to report to the “new” unit on the dence as a whole demonstrated that the docu- following morning, with which directive the ac- ment was properly admissible as a business cused complied.) Relief was denied. entry. Second, the applicant complained that no 6. In Apodacu, SPCM 197814320 and Putnnm, witness testified that he was familiar with the SPCM 1978/4304, The Judge Advocate General signature of the chemist whose purported sig- considered post-trial attempts to impeach the nature appeared on the laboratory report. It verdict or sentence of the courts-martial in was determined that the report had been prop- question. erly authenticated by a witness competent to In Apodaca, the accused submitted an af- show that it came through a reliable source (see fidavit to the effect that he stood outside the paragraph 144, MCM 1969 (rev.); United States room where the court members were de- v. Evans 21 U.S.C.M.A. 579, 45 C.M.R. 353 , liberating on sentence and overheard one court (1977)) and that a proper foundation had ‘z DA Pam 27-50-75 23 therefore been laid for admitting the report. It reservation in Texas. He was determined by was noted that the trial defense counsel ex- competent authority not to be reasonably avail- pressly declined to request the chemist as a able, the matter was appealed to the next witness. higher commander, and the appeal was denied. Finally, the applicant objected to the docu- The matter was renewed by motion before the ment on the basis of the comment in United military judge; the motion was denied. States v. Nault, 4 M.J. 318 (C.M.A. 1978), n.8, The reasons cited for the determination that to the effect that, “[Wle cannot formulate any CPT M was not reasonably available were, in presumption [of regularity of systematic han- substance, that CPT M’s workload was sub- dling] regarding the performance of the prose- stantial, that it could not be shifted to other . cutorial custodians of real evidence in the ab- counsel because the command had an insuffi- sence of the proper demonstration.’’ It was cient number of counsel available, and that it noted, in this connection, that the U.S. Army could not be deferred because of certain cir- Court of Military Review has questioned Chief cumstances. (A witness in a case being investi- Judge Fletcher’s “gratuitously created rule” in gated by CAPT M was due to be transferred in Nault and preferred “to await the determina- the near future. Also CAPT Ms duties included tion of a case by that court in which this issue is responsibility for the legal assistance needs of squarely presented, fully argued, and specif- the members of three battalion-size units that ically decided” before applying it. United were scheduled to depart for Europe within the States v. Porter, 5 M.J. 759 (A.C.M.R. 19781, next few months; there was therefore a signifi- pet. granted, 6 M.J. 35 (C.M.A. 1978). cant volume of legal assistance business that It was determined that until a decision in needed to be completed within the period be- \ Porter is rendered by the United States Court fore the departure of the units.) It was deter- of Military Appeals the test set forth in United mined that the military judge properly found that the decisions made by competent au- States v. Jenkins, M*J. ’05 1978) thorities that CPT M was not reasonably should be followed. That is: able to act as counsel in this case were properly The Government in order to satisfy its ob- made. ligations as to a proferred [laboratory] examination need not exclude all pos- The alleged offenses for which the accused sibilities of tampering. They need only was tried (trainee abuse) received some public- satisfy the trial judge that in reasonable ity in the local press prior to trial. The defense probability the article has not been counsel made a motion for a change of venue; changed in any important respect. the motion was denied. Some court members later stated on voir dire that they had been ex- United States v. Jenkins, supra, 5 M.J. at 907. posed to some of this pretrial publicity. That standard was met in the instant case. Re- lief was denied. It was noted that: Proof that a particular case has been 8. In Cordova, SPCM 197814332, The Judge widely publicized, standing by itself, does Advocate General considered contentions that not establish that a court-martial has been the accused was improperly denied the services influenced by such publicity. US v. Vig- of the individual defense counsel requested by neault, 3 U.S.C.M.A. 247, 12 C.M.R. 3 him and that a motion for a change of venue (1953). Further, the mere fact that court- should have been granted because of adverse martial members have heard or read about pretrial publicity. the case they are assigned to try, standing alone, is not a sufficient basis for a change The accused was tried at Fort Dix, New Jer- of venue so long as the members will not be sey. He submitted a request for CPT M to rep- “4, influenced. US v. Swenson, 35 C.M.R. 645 resent him. CPT M was stationed at a military (A.B.R. 1969), pet den., 15 U.S.C.M.A. DA Pam 27-50-75 F 24 694, 36 C.M.R. 541 (1965). US v. Smith, 1 be disturbed on appeal unless he has abused his M.J. 1204. 1207-1208 (N.C.M.R. 1977). discretion. United States v. Carter, 9 U.S.C.M.A. 108, 25 C.M.R. 370 (1958). In ac- The decision whether Or not to grant a mo- cordance with the foregoing principles, it was tion for a change of venue rests within the determined that the military judge in the in- sound discretion of the military judge to whom stant case had not abused his discretion in de- the motion is addressed. United States v. nying the motion for a change of venue. Relief Smith, supra; United States v. Carey, 1 M.J. was denied. 761 (A.F.C.M.R. 1975). His decision is not to

CLE NEWS

1. Civilian Sponsored CLE Courses. 2-6: GWU, Cost Reimbursement Contracting, George Washington University, Washington DC. Cost: $500-525. For further information on civilian courses, please con- tact the institution offering the course, as listed below: 4-6: FPI, Government costs, Sheraton Na- tional Hotel, Arlington VA. Cost: $525-550. AAJE: American Academy of Judicial Education, Suite 539, 1426 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20005. Phone: 4-6: PLI, Fundamental Concepts of Planning, (202) 783-5151 New York Sheraton Hotel, New York. Cost: $250. ALI-ABA: Donald M. Maclay, Director, Office of Courses 5-6: PLI, Land Use Planning and Litigation, Little of Study, ALI-ABA Committee on Continuing Profes- America Westgate Hotel, San Diego, CA. Cost: $185. sional Education, 4025 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, PA 5-6: PLI, Usury and Modern Business Transac- 19104. Phone: (215) 387-3000. tions, Beverly Hilton Hotel, Los Angles, CA. Cost: $200. FBA (FBA-BNA): Conference Secretary, Federal Bar / 5-7: ALI-ABA, The New Federal Bankruptcy Code on Association, Suite 420, 1815 H Street NW, Washing- Video Tape will be shown at the following locations: ton, DC 20006. Phone: (202) 638-0252. Cleveland, OH; Cranford, NJ; Denver, CO; Indianapolis, FPI: Federal Publications, Inc., Seminar Division Office, IN; Milwaukee, WI; North Haven, CT; Philadelphia, PA; Suite 500, 1725 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006. Pittsburgh, PA; Seattle, WA; Tucson, AR. Cost: $175. Phone: (202) 337-7000. 5-6: PLI, Equipment Leasing, Halloran House Hotel, GWU: Government Program, George Washing- New York City. Cost: $200. ton University, 2000 H Street NW, Rm. 303 D2, 6: NPI, Kaplan On Evidence, Sands Hotel, Las Vegas, Washington DC 20052. Phone: (202) 676-6815. NV. ICM: Institute for Court Management, Suite 210, 1624 7: NPI, Kaplan On Evidence, Brown Palace Hotel, Market St., Denver, CO 80202. Phone: (303) 543-3063. Denver, CO. NCDA: National College of District Attorneys, College 19-21: FBA, and Federal Trial of Law, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77004. Practice, Cherry Hill Hyatt Hotel, Cherry Hill, NJ. Phone: (713) 749-1571. 19-20: PLI, Risk Management for Hospitals and Health NJC: National Judicial College, Reno, NV 89557. Phone: (702) 784-6747. Care Institutions, Hyatt Regency Hotel, San Francisco, CA. Cost: $200. NPI: National Practice Institute, 861 West Butler 20: NPI, UCC Update, Stouffer's Hotel, Louisville, Square, Minneapolis, MN 55403. Phone: 1-800-328-4444 (In MN call (612) 338-1977). KY. PLI: Practising Law Institute, 810 Seventh Avenue, 21: NPI, UCC Update, International Inn, Washington, DC . New York, NY 10019. Phone: (212) 765-7500. 22-25: ICM, Management of Criminal Cases, Denver, APRIL co . 1-5: NCDA, Organized Crime, Part 11, Houston, TX. 22-26: NCDA, Trial Techniques, Boston, MA. 2-4: FPI, Research and Development Contracting, 22-27: NJC, Alcohol and Drugs (for ), Univer- Tropicana Hotel, Las Vegas, NV. Cost: $525-550. sity of Nevada, Reno, NV. Cost: $300. /- DA Pam 27-50-75 25 23-25: AAJE, 11: Pretrial Procedures, 14-15: PLI, Federal Civil Rights Litigation, Fairmont Confession and Identification (for judges), Arizona State Hotel, New Orleans, LA. Cost: $160. Univ., Tempe, AZ. Cost: $200. 17-18: PLI, Risk Management for Hospitals and Health 23-24: PLI, Federal Civil Rights Litigation, New York Care Institutions, Marriott Hotel, New Orleans, LA. Hilton Hotel, New York City. Cost: $160. cost: $200. 25-26: FBA, Criminal Law Seminar, National Lawyers 20-25: NJC, Criminal Evidence (graduate, for judges), Club, Washington, D.C. University of Nevada, Reno, NV. Cost: $300. 26-28: AAJE, Evidence 11: Cross-examination, Compe- 24-25: FBA, Openness in Government V, The May- tency and Privilege (for judges), University of Nevada, flower Hotel, Washington, DC. Reno, NV. Cost: $200. 31-2 June: ALI-ABA, , Washington, DC. 26-27: PLI, Equipment Leasing, Little America Westgate Hotel, San Diego, CA. Cost: $200. JUNE 26-27: PLI, Ninth Annual Employee Benefits Insti- tute, Biltmore Hotel, New York City. Cost: $185. 1-2: FBA, Conference on Federal Trial Practice, Washington, DC. 26-27: PLI, Use of Trusts in Estate Planning, New ! Orleans Hilton Hotel, New Orleans, LA. Cost: $185. 10-16: NCDA, Executiv secutor Course, Houston, TX . 26-27: PLI, Usury and Modern Business Transactions, Biltmore Hotel, New York City. Cost: $200. 14-16: ALI-ABA, The New Federal Bankruptcy Code, San Francisco, CA. 27: NPI, UCC IJpdate, Everglades Hotel, Mia 17-13: NJC, General Jurisdiction (for judges), Univer- 28: NPI, UCC Update, Marriott Hotel, Atlanta, GA. sity of Nevada, Reno, "V. Cost: $750. 294 May: NCDA, 's Office Administrator 17-29: NJC, The Judge and the Trial (graduate, for g Course, Part 111, Houston, TX. judges), University of Nevada, Reno, NV. Cost: $450. 29-4 May: NJC, Evidence (graduate, for Judges), Uni- 18-22: AAJE, Practicalities of Judging, versity of Nevada, Reno, NV. Cost: $300. and the Humanities, Cambridge, MA. 30-2 May: FBA. Conference, Mayflower 18-27: AAJE, Seminar on the British Justice System, Hotel, Washington, DC. Birmingham, England. 30-2 May: FPI, Government Contract Costs, Sheraton 24-29: NJC, Evidence (graduate, for judges), Univer- National Hotel, Washington, DC. Cost: $525-550. sity of Nevada, Reno, NV. Cost: $300. 304 May: GWU, Patents and Technical Data, GWU 24-29: ALI-ABA, Estate Planning in Depth, Madison, Library, Washington, DC. Cost: $425. WT. MAY 24-29: ALI-ABA, Trial Evidence in Federal and State udy of Recent Developments, Madi- 24: PLI, Fundamental Concepts Hyatt Union Square Hotel, San Francisco, $250. 24-29: NJC, Evidence (graduate, for judges), Univer- sity of Nevada, Reno, NV. Cost: $300. 4-5: Construction Contracting in the Middle East: Problems and Solutions, Washington, DC. 6-24: NJC, General Jurisdiction (for judges), Univer- 2. TJAGSA CLE Courses sity of Nevada, Reno, NV. Cost: $600. April 2-6: 46th Senior Officer Legal Orienta- 6-11: NJC, Sentencing Felons (graduate, for judges), tion (5~~~1). University of Nevada, Reno, NV. Cost: $300. 10-11: PLI, Equipment Leasing 1979, Atlanta Hilton April 9-12: 9th Fiscal Law (5F-Fl2). Hotel, Atlanta, GA. Cost: $200. April 9-12: 2d Litigation (5F-FZ9). 10-11: PLI, Land Use Planning and Litigation, New April 17-19: 3d Claims (5F-F-26). York Sheraton Hotel, New York City. Cost: $1

*4 10-11: PLI, Use of Trusts in Estate Plan April 23-27: 9th Staff Judge Advocate Orien-

Hotel, Seattle, WA. Cost: $185. 4

L DA Pam 27-50-75 26 April 23-May 4: 80th Contract Attorneys’ ginia at Charlottesville. The mission of the (5F-F10). School is to provide resident and nonresident instruction in military law. The School’s faculty May 7-10: 6th Legal Assistance (5F-F23). is composed entirely of military attorneys. May 14-16: 3d Negotiations (5F-F14). THE ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT May 14-15: 1st U.S. Court Work- The Academic Department develops and con- shop ducts resident and nonresident instruction. The May 21-June 8: 18th Military Judge (5F- organization of the Department includes Crimi- F33). nal Law, Administrative and , Inter- national Law and Contract Law Divisions. May 30-June 1: Legal Aspects of Terrorism. Within the Department, the Nonresident In- June 11-15: 47th Senior Officer Legal Orien- struction Branch administers the School’s cor- tation (5F-Fl). respondence course program and other non- resident instruction. June 18-29: JAGS0 (CM Trial). COURSES OFFERED June 21-23: Military Law Institute Seminar. The Judge Advocate General’s School offers a July 9-13 (Contract Law) and July 16-20 total of 31 different resident courses. The offi- (Int. Law): JAOGCKGSC (Phase VI Contract cial source of information concerning courses of Law) Int. Law. instruction at all Army service schools, includ- July 9-20: 2d Military Administrative Law ing the Judge Advocate General’s School, is the (5F-F20). U.S.Army Formal Schools Catalog (DA Pam 3514). Attendance by foreign military person- rc July 16-August 3: 19th Military Judge (5F- ne1 is governed by applicable Army regula- F33 ) . tions. Quotas for most courses offered at The July 23-August 3: 81st Contract Attorneys’ Judge Advocate General’s School may be ob- tained through usual unit training channels. Course (5F-F10). Exceptions to this policy are the Judge Advo- August 6-October 5: 90th Judge Advocate cate Officer Basic Course, Judge Advocate Of- Officer Basic (5-27-C20). ficer Graduate Course, and Staff Judge Advo- August 13-17: 48th Senior Officer Legal cate Orientation Course, quotas for which are Orientation (5F-Fl). controlled by the Personnel, Plans and Training Office in the Office of The Judge Advocate August 20-May 24, 1980: 28th Judge Advo- General; the Military Judge Course, quotas for cate Officer Graduate (5-27-C22). which are controlled by the Army Judiciary in August 2731: 9th Law Office Management Washington, D.C.; and the Senior Officer Legal Orientation Course, quotas for which are con- (7A-713A). trolled by MILPERCEN. Inquiries concerning September 17-21: 12th Work- quotas and waivers of prerequisites should be shop (5F-F42). directed to Commandant, The Judge Advocate September 28-28: 49th Senior Officer Legal General’s School, U. S. Army, Charlottesville, Orientation (5F-Fl). Virginia 22901, ATTENTION: Academic De- partment. 3. TJAGSA Course Prerequisites and Sub- stantive Content. TABLE OF CONTENTS COURSE TITLE GENERAL INFORMATION , NUMBER The Judge Advocate General’s School is located 5-27-C20 Judge Advocate Officer Basic ,-- on the north grounds of the University of Vir- 5-27-C22 Judge Advocate Officer Graduate DA Pam 27-50-75 27 COURSE TITLE eral’s Corps or his service’s equivalent. Secu- NUMBER rity clearance required: None. 5F-F1 Senior Officers’ Legal Orientation Substantive Content: The course stresses mili- 5F-F10 Contract Attorneys’ Course tary criminal law and procedure and other 5F-Fll Contract Attorneys’ Advanced areas of military law which are most likely to Course concern a judge advocate officer in his first 5F-12 Fiscal Law duty assignment. 5F-F13 Allowability of Contract Costs 5F-F14 Negotiations Criminal Law: Introduction to military crimi- 5F-F15 Contract Attorneys’ Workshop nal law and the practical aspects of criminal 5F-F20 Military Administrative procedure and practice. 5F-F21 Civil Law trative and Civil Law: Introduction to 5F-F22 Federal Labor personnel law (military and civilian), legal basis 5F-F23 Legal Assistance of command, claims, legal assistance and Army 5F-F25 Military Administrative L organization and management. Developments 5F-F26 Claims Contract Law: Introduction to the law of U.S. 5F-F27 Government contracts. 5F-F28 Government Information P : Introduction to Law of 5F-F29 Litigation War and Status of Forces Agreements. 5F-F30 Military Justice I 5F-F31 Military Justice I1 ‘z 5F-F32 Criminal 5F-F33 Military Judge - 5F-F34 Defense Trial Advocacy Length: 40 weeks. 5F-F35 Criminal Law New Developments 5F-F40 International Law I Purpose: To provide branch trainihg in and a 5F-F41 International Law I1 working knowledge of the duties and respon- 5F-F42 Law of War Workshop sibilities of field grade Judge Advocate Gen- 5F-F43 Legal Aspects of Terrorism eral’s Corps officers, with emphasis on the po- 5F-F52 Staff Judge Advocate Orientation sitions of deputy staff judge advocates and staff 7A-713A Law Office Manag judge advocates. 512-71D/ Military Lawyer’s Prerequisites: Commissioned officer: Career 20/50 officer of the Armed Forces whose branch is U.S. Magistrate C JAGC or the Service’s equivalent, in fourth to eighth year of Army officers are selected for attendance by JUDGE ADVOCATE OFFICER The Judge Advocate General. BASIC COURSE (5-27420) Service Obligation: Two years. Length: 9 weeks. Substantive Content: The Judge Advocate Of- ficer Graduate Course prepares career military To provide officers newly appointed Purpose: lawyers for future service in staff judge advo- in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps with the cate positions. To accomplish this, the course is Basic orientation and training necessary to oriented toward graduate-level perform the duties of a judge advocate. comparable to the graduate programs of civil- Prerequisites: Commissioned officer who is a ian law schools. The American Bar Association

4. lawyer and who has been appointed or antici- pates appointment in the Judge Advocate Gen- ~ I /” DA Pam 27-50-75 28 conducted over a two-semester academic year Status of Forces Agreements and Law of War. totalling approximately 42 credit hours. It con- Procurement Law: Survey of the Anti- sists of the following curriculum elements: Deficiency Act. 1. Core courses consisting of approximately 28 credit hours of criminal law, administrative CONTRACT ATTORNEYS’ COURSE and civil law, international law, and contract (5F-Fl0) law subjects, military subjects and communica- Length: 2 weeks. tions. Purpose: To provide basic instruction in the 2. Electives presented both by The Judge legal aspects of government procurement at the Advocate General’s School and the University installation level. Completion of this course also of Virginia School of Law totaling approxi- fulfills one-half of the requirements of Phase VI mately 14 credit hours. of the nonresidenttresident Judge Advocate Officer Graduate Course and covers one-half of the material presented in the USAR School SENIOR OFFICERS’ LEGAL Judge Advocate Officer Graduate Course ADT ORIENTATION COURSE (5F-F1) Phase VI. Length: 4-% days. Prerequisites: Active duty or reserve compo- Purpose: To acquaint senior commanders with nent military attorneys or appropriate civilian installation and unit legal problems encoun- attorneys employed by the U.S. Government, tered in both the criminal and civil law fields. with six months or less procurement experi- ence. Security clearance required: None. Prerequisites: Active duty and reserve compo- nent commissioned officers in the grade of colo- Substantive Content: Basic legal concepts re- nel or lieuten’ant colonel about to be assigned as garding the authority of the Government and installation commander or deputy; service its personnel to enter into contracts; contract school commandant; principal installation com- formation (formal advertising and negotiation), mander or deputy; service school commandant; including appropriations, basic contract types, principal staff officer (such as chief of staff, service contracts, and socioeconomic policies, provost marshal, inspector general, director of contract performance, including modifications, personnel) at division, brigade or installation disputes, including remedies and appeals. levels; or as a brigade commander. As space permits, those to be assigned as battalion com- CONTRACT ATTORNEYS’ manders may attend. Security clearance re- ADVANCED COURSE (5F-Fll) quired: None. Length: 1 week. Substantive Content: Administrative and Civil Purpose: To provide continuing legal education Law: of military activities, mili- and advanced expertise in the and tary aid to civil authorities, installation man- governing government procure- agement, labor-management relations, civilian ment. To provide information on changes at the personnel law, military personnel law, nonap- policy level. propriated funds, civil rights, legal assistance, claims and government information practices. Prerequisities: Active duty or reserve compo- Criminal Law: Survey of principles relating to nent military attorneys or appropriate civilian search and seizure, confessions, and nonjudicial attorneys employed by the U.S. Government. punishment. Emphasis is placed on the options Applicants must have successfully completed and responsibilities of convening authorities the Contract Attorneys’ Course (5F-F10), or before and after trial in military justice mat- equivalent training, or have at least one year’s ters, including the theori and practicabilities experience as a procurement attorney. Security ,- of sentencing. International Law: Survey of clearance required: None. DA Pam 27-50-75 29 Substantive Content: Advanced legal concepts Deficiency Act, industrial and stock funds, and arising in connection with the practical aspects the Minor Construction Act will be covered. of contracting, funding, competitive negotia- tion, socioeconomic policies, government as- sistance, state and local taxation, modifica- ALLOWABILITY OF CONTRACT tions, weapons system acquisition, truth in COSTS COURSE (5F-Fl3) negotiations, terminations, labor relations problems, contract claims, and litigation. Length: 24days. Course will normally be theme oriented to focus Purpose: The Allowability of Contract Costs on a major area of procurement law. Intensive Course is a basic course designed to develop an instruction will include current changes in the understanding of the nature and means by laws, regulations and decisions of courts and which the government compensates contractors boards. for their costs. The course focuses on three main areas: (1) basic accounting for contract costs; (2) the Cost Principles of ASPR § 15; and FISCAL LAW COURSE (3) the Cost Accounting Standards Board and (5F-Fl2) the Costs Accounting Standards. The course is Length: 3-% days. a mixture of lectures and panel discussions aimed at covering substantive and practical is- Purpose: To provide a basic knowledge of the sues of contract costs. This course is not rec- laws and regulations governing the obligation ommended for attorneys who are experienced and expenditure of appropriated funds and an in application of cost principles. insight into current fiscal issues within the De- “., partment of the Army. The course covers basic Prerequisites: Active duty or reserve compo- statutory constraints and administrative pro- nent military attorney or appropriate civilian cedures involved in the system of appropriation attorney employed by the U.S. Government, control and obligation of funds within the De- with at least one year of procurement experi- partment of Defense. This course emphasizes ence. Applicants must have successfully com- the methods contracting officers and legal and pleted the Contract Attorneys’ Course (5F- financial personnel working together can utilize F10) or equivalent. to avoid over-obligations. Substantive Content: This introductory course Prerequisites: Active duty commissioned offi- will focus on three main areas: functional cost cer of an armed force, or appropriate civilian accounting terms and application, cost princi- employee of the U.S. Government actively en- ples, and cost accounting standards. gaged in procurement law, contracting or ad- ministering funds available for obligation in procurement law, contracting or adm NEGOTIATIONS COURSE funds available for obligation on pro (5F-F14) contracts. Must be an attorney contracting offi- Length: 2-% days. cer, comptroller, finance and accounting offi- cer, budget analyst or equivalent. Attendees Purpose: The Negotiations Course is designed should have completed TJAGSA Contract At- to develop advanced understanding of the torneys’ Course, a financial manager’s course, a negotiated competitive procurement method. comptrollership course or equivalent. The course focuses on the attorney’s role in negotiated competitive procurement, including: Substantive Content: Practical legal and ad- (1) when and how to use this method; (2) de- ministrative problems in connection with the velopment of source selection criteria; (3) funding of government contracts. Basic aspects source selection evaluation process; (4) com- of the appropriations process, adminis x, range; (5) oral and written discussions; control of appropriated funds, the and (6) techniques. DA Pam 27-50-75 / 30 Prerequisites: Active duty or reserve compo- personnel law instruction or the week of legal nent military attorney or appropriate civilian basis of command instruction, or both.) This attorney employed by the U.S. Government, course is specifically designed to fulfill one-half with at least one, but not more than five years of the reserve requirements of Phase IV of the of procurement experience. Applicants must nonresidenthesident Judge Advocate Officer have successfully completed the Contract At- Graduate Course. It also covers one-half of the torneys’ Course (5F-F10) or equivalent. Secu- material presented in the USAR School Judge rity clearance required: None. Advocate Officer Graduate C IV . Substantive Content: The course will focus on solicitation and award by negotiation including Prerequisities: Active duty or reserve compo- selection of the procurement method, use of the nent military attorney, 02-04, or appropriate negotiation process in the development of civilian attorney employed by the U.S. Gov- source selection, discussion and techniques. ernment. Although appropriate for active duty personnel, enrollment is not recommended un- CONTRACT ATTORNEYS’ less the individual is working toward comple- tion of the Graduate Course by correspondence. WORKSHOP Security clearance required: None. (5F-Fl5) ’.I Substantive Content: Personnel Law: Basic Length: 2 days. concepts of personne and judicial review of Purpose: The workshop provides an opportu- military activities: tes, regulations and nity to examine, in the light of recent develop- court decisions relating to military personnel ments, and discuss in depth current procure- law, boards of officers, civilian personnel law, ment problems encountered in installation SJA labor-management relations and federal review offices. Attorneys will be asked to submit of military activities. Legal Basis of Command: problems in advance of attendance. These will Statutes, regulations and court decisions re- be collected, researched and arranged for lating to the control and management of mili- seminar discussion under the direction of the tary installations and nonappropriated funds,

Contract Law faculty.