the reporter - Air Force JAG Corps

3Vol 26, Special History EditionThe Reporter

THE REPORTER is published quarterly by the The Air Force JudgeAdvocate General School for the Office of the Judge AdvocateGeneral, United States Air Force. Views expressed herein, unlessotherwise specifically indicated, are those of the individual author.They do not purport to express the views of The Judge AdvocateGeneral, the Department of the Air Force, or any other depart-ment or agency of the United States Government. Photographsare U.S. government property unless otherwise indicated.

Contributions from all readers are invited. Items are welcomeon any area of the law, legal practice, or procedure that would be ofinterest to members of The Air Force Judge Advocate General’sDepartment. Items or inquiries should be directed to The AirForce Judge Advocate General School, CPD/JAR (150 ChennaultCircle, Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6418)(Comm (334) 953-2802/DSN 493-2802).

Subscriptions - Paid subscriptions are available through the Su-perintendent of Documents, U.S. GPO, Washington, D.C. 20402.

Citation - Cite as [Author], [Title], THE REPORTER, [date], at [pagenumber].

Distribution - Special, Air Force legal offices receive THE RE-PORTER from AFLSA/CCQ, Bolling AFB, D.C. 20332-6128 (Comm(202) 757-1515/DSN 297-1515).

THE REPORTER

OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL

50th Anniversary Edition

On Your 50th Anniversary

A Word from the Acting Secretary and Chief of Staff

50th Anniversary Message from The Judge AdvocateGeneral

Happy Anniversary Wishes from the SeniorParalegal Manager

Establishing the Department: General Order 7,25 January 1949

CONTENTS

The Department

HISTORY50 Golden YearsBy Lieutenant Colonel Michael N. Schmitt andMajor Joseph E. Cole

PERSPECTIVEAn Australian Tropical TownBy Colonel Myron L. Birnbaum

Me and Mr. BBy Colonel J. Jeremiah Mahoney

Fascinating JourneyBy Lieutenant Colonel Larry I. Ashlock

TOTAL FORCEPartners at LastBy Major Michael E. Guillory

The ANG JourneyBy Colonel William Alexander andLieutenant Colonel Sandra G. Marsh

HISTORYIf Not For ParalegalsBy Captain Denise M. Burke andTechnical Sergeant Sherrie L. Rogers

TOTAL FORCEAccepting The ChallengeBy Technical Sergeant Angela X. Blackshaw

“A lawyer without history or literature is a mechanic, a mere working mason; if he possesses some knowledgeof these, he may venture to call himself an architect.” ~ Sir Walter Scott

7

8

9

1011

22

23

26

29

37

43

47

4 The Reporter / Vol. 26, Special History Edition

The DepartmentJAG LEADERSHIPThe Judge Advocate General

HISTORYBefore We Had WingsBy Major Norman Thompson

A Sign of the JAGBy Mr. Gary Null

PERSPECTIVEAnnual Judge Advocate General’s Dining-InBy Major Bruce Ambrose

JAG LEADERSHIPSenior Paralegal Manager to The Judge AdvocateGeneral

PERSPECTIVETypist to TechnicianBy Chief Master Sergeant Freddy W. Page

HISTORYService to Community: Ms. Eunice

We Remember

The Judge Advocate General’s Department Awards

Direct Appointees Enter the JAG DepartmentBy Colonel Martha Levardsen

A Quarter Century of FLEPBy Colonel James W. Swanson

The Great Big School HouseBy Major R. Scott Howard

The Annual Survey of the LawBy Major General Robert M. Martin

A Proud TraditionBy Major Christopher vanNatta

Building on a Firm FoundationBy Brigadier General Edward F. Rodriguez, Jr. andMajor Guillermo R. Carranza

PERSPECTIVEJAG-NA-NA: The Legend LivesBy Colonel Thomas G. Becker

Military JusticeHISTORYSharpening the Sword of JusticeBy Major Keith R. Alich

A Deadly Footnote to the UCMJBy Colonel Everett G. Hopson

You Are Known By The Company You KeepBy Colonel Patrick B. O’Brien

The Start of the Trial JudiciaryBy Colonel Carl Abrams

Air Force Military JudgesBy Colonel Michael B. McShane

PERSPECTIVEHumor in Blue Uniform

The Case of the Shackled Trial CounselBy Colonel David G. Ehrhart

HISTORYAfter the ConvictionBy Colonel Earl E. Hodgson, Jr.

Pioneering the Defense ProgramBy Major Lynn G. Norton

Operations LawA Vital Piece of the Air Force PackageBy Major Jeffery K. Walker

KOREAFirst Major ConflictBy Major Leonard L. Broseker

In the Korean WarBy Colonel Walter L. Lewis

THE COLD WAR

“In SAC, Everything is Predictable”By Brigadier General Roger A. Jones

Flying “The Glass”By Major General William A. Moorman

VIETNAMChanging Times And New ChallengesBy Captain Denise M. Burke

A Year in VietnamBy Major General David C. Morehouse

48

55

64

66

68

71

73

73

74

77

76

79

85

86

89

91

88

92

94

96

97

99

101

102

106

110

112

113

115

118

126

120


EDITORMajor Lisa L. Turner

ASSISTANT EDITORMajor Michael E. Guillory

EDITORIAL BOARDColonel David G. Ehrhart, Commandant and Chairman; Lieutenant Colonel John E. Kellogg; Lieutenant Colonel Patrick W.Lindemann; Lieutenant Colonel Michael A. Rodgers; Mr. W. Darrell Phillips; Major Norman K. Thompson; Major Del Grissom;Major Jody A. Evans; Major Robert S. Howard; Major Timothy G. Buxton; Major Mark R. Strickland; Major Leonard L. Broseker;Major Michael R. McWright; Major Guillermo R. Carranza; Major Lynn G. Norton; Major David S. Castro; Major Leslie D.Long; Major Christopher C. vanNatta; Captain Denise M. Burke

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCEMs. Sanna Long; Mr. James R. Whitaker; Mr. Graham Stevens; Ms. Jeanne M. Snow; TSgt Elizabeth A. Smith; TSgt Donald B.Tyson; SSgt Johnny L. Smith; SSgt Clarence Brown; Mrs. Leanna H. Simmons; A1C Amanda Wright

DESIGN CONSULTANTSCaptain Colleen vanNatta; SSgt Madelyn Alvarez; Mr. Trey Ward (outside and inside covers); Mr. Herb Huie (unattributedcartoons)

Purple Heart Recipients

Travelin’ Judge

Prisoner of WarBy Colonel Henry P. Fowler

THE IN-BETWEEN YEARSTake Cover!By Colonel James C. Fetterman

What Do LOAC Training and Noriega’s Desk Havein Common?By Colonel Thomas Tudor

DESERT SHIELD/STORMSword in the SandBy Major Leonard L. Broseker

Fighting the StormBy Lieutenant Colonel Ronald M. Reed

Courts Before the StormBy Master Sergeant Carrie Carson

NEW WORLD DISORDERAt the Tip of the SpearBy Colonel Charles J. Dunlap, Jr.

Congratulations on Your Selection To Visit theDesertBy Major Leonard L. Broseker

Operations LawyeringBy Major David Wesley

JAGs Around the Globe

All The Things We DoDisaster Strikes!By Major Regina E. Quinn

Military AffairsBy Lieutenant Colonel James E. Moody

The Lawyer Is InBy Major Rick A. Becker

Leading the RevolutionBy Mr. John Paul Davis

A Clue From The GraveBy Ms. Irene Pence

Real Excerpts From Efficiency Reports

They Put That In Writing?!By Lieutenant Colonel David Hoard

In Conclusion

A Good Judge Advocate Is Not Born-He Is MadeBy Colonel Bryan L. Rakestraw

Paralegal CreedBy Staff Sergeant Robert L. Jones

I Am A Judge AdvocateBy Colonel James W. Swanson

174

129

138

130

132

136

137

146

178

149

147

152

154

156

157

158

160

166

173

172

177

173


In 1976, I was a second lieutenant, fresh from the United States Air Force Academy, assigned to the 56th Combat

Support Group (TAC) at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.Unlike a majority of Judge Advocates, my first exposure to theJudge Advocate General’s Department was not through theJudge Advocate Staff Officer Orientation Course. In Septem-ber of 1976, I was chosen to serve as a court member in thespecial court-martial of an Airman First Class who was ac-cused of being absent without leave. Interestingly enough,the trial judge in the case was Captain, now Brigadier General,Gilbert J. Regan, and, the trial counsel was Captain Robert E.Sutemeier, now Colonel retired and former Commandant of theAir Force Judge Advocate General School. As I sat in thatcourtroom in 1976, I would never have imagined that sometwenty three years later, as the Judge Advocate General’sDepartment celebrates its 50th Anniversary, I would be writingthis introduction to a special edition of THE REPORTER as theCommandant of the Air Force Judge Advocate General School.

An anniversary is a time of celebration as well as a time ofreflection. The 50th Anniversary of the Judge Advocate

From The Editors...It is with great pleasure that we present you with this Special

50th Anniversary Edtion of THE REPORTER. When originallyapproached with the concept of dedicating an edition of THE

REPORTER to celebrating our Department’s 50th Anniversary,the editors envisioned the addition of a few congratulatoryletters to one of the regularly published quarterly editions.However, as we reflected on the importance of our goldenanniversary, and found there was a dearth of published mate-rials on the history of the Department, we began to conceiveof a special edition comprised solely of history articles, anec-dotes, and photographs. With the unconditional support ofthe Commandant of the Air Force Judge Advocate GeneralSchool (AFJAGS), we were able to unleash the creativity ofmany past and present members of the Department, and bringyou this one-of-a-kind, special edition of THE REPORTER.

This edition is not meant to be a complete history of the AirForce Judge Advocate General’s Department. Only a multi-volume book could be so ambitious as to attempt that task.Instead, we have tried to provide you with a series of literaland figurative snapshots that span the last fifty years. Inevi-tably, some reader will search for a reference to a piece ofhistory they are familiar with and find it missing. Anotherreader will recall a recorded event differently than one of ourauthors. We realize that capturing history can be difficult andthat accuracy is sometimes hard to achieve. Memories fade,documents do not tell the entire story, and storytellers relatehistory from their point of view. To the extent possible, theeditorial staff has checked facts and received permission to

General’s Department is no exception. As we celebrate ourfifty years as a Department and look toward the future withexcitement and anticipation as to what the next fifty years willbring, we must not forget the rich and honorable history ofour Department, for it is a history that has made us a depart-ment which plays a vital role in accomplishing the Air ForceMission. To ensure the history of our Department is not for-gotten, Major General Bryan G. Hawley, recently retired andthe 12th Judge Advocate General of the United States Air Force,commissioned an edition of THE REPORTER dedicated to hon-oring our past. This Special History Edition is the result.

I would like to thank the many current and former judgeadvocates and paralegals who contributed to this specialedition. I am convinced that after reading this Special HistoryEdition of THE REPORTER, you will all have a renewed sence ofpride in belonging to one of the greatest departments withinthe United States Air Force: The Air Force Judge AdvocateGeneral’s Department.

publish stories. Most of the source documents and interviewnotes are maintained at AFJAGS.

If you were personally involved in one of these anecdotes,we invite you to write or e-mail us with your comments, cor-rections or additions. Similarly, if by reading the followingpages, your memory of other stories and JAG lore is stimu-lated, please share those stories with us.

The editors cannot thank enough the numerous people whoworked hard and long to bring you this tribute to our past. Asyou turn the pages and travel back through our proud history,you will hear the voices of many pivotal members of the JAGDepartment. We extend our special thanks to Major GeneralsMoorman, Morehouse, Nelson and Martin, Brigadier Gener-als Jones and Rodriguez, and Colonel Fowler who either wrotearticles or kindly provided materials and reviewed articles. Wealso thank the JAG School Foundation for their support.

Every article in this edition, unlike regular editions, is at-tributed to an author because each of them went above andbeyond the call of duty in researching and writing their article.They have recorded, for the first time, a clear picture of whatmakes us who we are. The editors thank each of them for theirsupport in this endeavor to preserve our Department’s heri-tage. Finally, as editor-in-chief, I extend my personal gratitudeto the AFJAGS faculty and staff who meticulously reviewedeach article, checked and double checked facts, and patientlysupported this truly team effort - and again- to Colonel Ehrhartfor his confidence in the editors.

From the Commandant...


SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON

Commanders Depend on JAGs

On behalf of the United States Air Force, we congratulate the outstanding men and women, past andpresent, of the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Department on the occasion of the Department’s50th Anniversary. Although judge advocates have served the Air Force since its inception in 1947, the AirForce Judge Advocate General’s Department was officially formed by regulation on 25 January 1949.

The JAG Department has a rich and colorful history. JAGs and paralegals have been at commanders’sides in nearly every operation since the department formed, including Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, and thePersian Gulf. In addition to combat theaters, JAGs have often been critical components of forces conductinghumanitarian, peacekeeping, and contingency operations. Often, much of the JAG’s work is carried on behindthe scenes, negotiating with foreign leaders, making arrangements for proper services, and ensuring agree-ments are in place to protect our service members abroad. As important, and even less conspicuous, are theparalegals and other legal staff that support these operations.

History has shown that the key ingredient for a successful military force is good order and discipline.Commanders have always depended on JAG advice to preserve and maintain a well-disciplined force. Inaddition, as the Air Force evolved and adapted to ever changing environments, commanders relied on JAGs toresolve the complex legal issues that accompanied change and expansion. To meet these challenges, the JAGDepartment has grown to a force of over 4,680 personnel, including JAGs, civilian attorneys, enlisted members,civilian support staff, and Reserve and National Guard personnel. The JAG Department has also expanded itsexpertise in critical legal specialties such as aviation, civil, claims, criminal, environmental, ethics, international,labor, legal assistance, medical, operations, procurement, space, and tax law. These changes ensure continuedsuperb advice into the 21st Century.

Speaking for the men and women who have served or are now serving in the United States Air Force, weare honored to recognize the most outstanding law firm in the world — the Air Force Judge AdvocateGeneral’s Department. Our grateful thanks for a job well done.

Michael E. Ryan F. Whitten PetersGeneral, USAF Acting Secretary of the Air ForceChief of Staff


MEMORANDUM FOR MEMBERS OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

SUBJECT: 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE JUDGE AVOCATE GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

On 25 January 1999, members of the Judge Advocate General’s Department,United States Air Force, began a yearlong celebration of our 50th Anniversary. Asthe thirteenth Judge Advocate General, and a member of the Department for morethan half of its existence, it is my distinct privilege and honor to add my heartfeltcongratulations to those of General Ryan and Mr. Peters.

This Special 50th Anniversary Edition of The Reporter provides all members ofthe Department, past, present, and future, with a window to review our history. Iam pleased to present you with this fitting tribute to our golden anniversary. Theedition captures an overall history of our Department, and perhaps more signifi-cantly, snapshots of some of the experiences of those individuals who made up theDepartment over the past 50 years.

You will read about some of the significant accomplishments past and presentmembers of the Department have achieved for the Air Force. We provided wiseand balanced counsel to commanders in the administration of our military justicesystem, discharged our obligations as defense counsel and prosecutors, and

maintained the fairness and integrity of our military justice system as independent military judges. We defended commanders’rights to issue sometimes unpleasant orders, to enforce discipline, and to make sensible decisions on contractual matters andlabor issues. We stood, and continue to stand, side-by-side with our Air Force brothers and sisters in harm’s way. Our adviceand counsel during operations has been and will continue to be a vital piece of the Air Force’s ability to accomplish itsmission. We demonstrated our amazing flexibility by adapting and expanding into areas of the law never contemplated 50years ago. And, we have continually provided the core support needed by our airmen in the area of legal assistance andclaims. The wide variety of professional legal services we have provided to military personnel throughout the world over thepast 50 years have demonstrated that the Department is and has been comprised of highly motivated and talented attorneys,paralegals and civilians.

More than just being a law firm, we are and have been military professionals. As the first Judge Advocate General, MajorGeneral Harmon, believed, we are part of the basic fabric of the operational Air Force. We are airmen, officers and enlisted,who happen also to be lawyers and paralegals.

Presently, the nearly 1340 active duty judge advocates are joined in their service to this great Nation by over 1000 militaryparalegals, 340 civilian attorneys, and a talented cadre of support personnel, military and civilian totaling over 600. The talentsand strengths of our full time personnel are immeasurably magnified by the 650 JAGs in the AF Reserve and 250 in the ANGand their Reserve Component military paralegals. All work together as a seamless team in support of the Air Force and buildupon our heritage of integrity, service before self and excellence in all we do.

Each of us owes those who have gone before a debt of gratitude for providing us with a solid foundation upon which tostand as we represent the premier clients of the world, our commanders and the great men and women who serve under themin the United States Air Force. I am honored to serve as your Judge Advocate General and look forward to helping lead theDepartment and our Air Force in building on its already enviable record as we move into the new millenium serving our greatNation and the ideals for which it stands.

WILLIAM A. MOORMANMajor General, USAFThe Judge Advocate General


MEMORANDUM FOR MEMBERS OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

SUBJECT: 50th ANNIVERSARY OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

I am honored to add my congratulatory memorandum, for this 50th Anniversary Edition of The Reporter, to those of GeneralRyan, Mr. Peters, and General Moorman. Little could I have known 19 years ago, as I entered The Judge Advocate General’sDepartment as a retraining senior airman, that I would have the privilege of addressing such a prestigious audience, on such aspecial occasion, while serving as the ninth Senior Paralegal Manager to The Judge Advocate General.

Much has changed in the intervening 19 years since I entered this department. The concepts and realities that drove the worldarena have moved in directions we could not have imagined then. So too has our Department changed. We have embracedtechnological and philosophical advancements that have made us the Department of Defense’s premier legal firm. It is fascinatingto reflect upon the advancements we’ve made over the 19 years I’ve been a part of this Department. As we reflect on theDepartment’s entire history, on the occasion of our 50th Anniversary, we should be in awe of our collective accomplishments.

This 50th Anniversary Edition of The Reporter gives us just such an opportunity to reflect on the accomplishments of ourpredecessors as well as those of our contemporaries. It offers us an opportunity to capture moments in our history, develop pridein those who helped make that history, inspire our junior personnel to surpass our accomplishments, and preserve our history forfuture Department personnel to build upon.

For fifty years our legal personnel: attorneys, paralegals, and civilians — active duty and Air Reserve Component, havebeen making the history you will read about between the pages of this commemorative edition. Every person in The JudgeAdvocate General’s Department continues to add to that history today. The work we perform, the directions we take, and theleaders we produce will be the basis for the history future Department personnel will study and hopefully build upon.

I trust you will find this anniversary edition a treasure and a keepsake to document your connection with our Departmenton this historic occasion. I am certainly proud to include my congratulations to this historic document, and I’m also proud tohave been a part of The Judge Advocate General Department’s history for 19 of its 50 years. Representing the collectivehistory of our paralegal force over the Department’s entire 50-year history, it is my honor to wish each of you a Happy 50th

Anniversary!

DAVID A. HASKINS, CMSgt, USAFSenior Paralegal Manager toThe Judge Advocate General


DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCEWASHINGTON

GENERAL ORDERS ) 25 January 1949NO. 7 )

Announcement is made of the establishment of The Judge AdvocateGeneral�s Department, United States Air Force, by the Act of June 25, 1948(Pub Law 775, 80th Congress). The Judge Advocate General�s Departmentis comprised of The Judge Advocate General and the following officersdesignated by the Chief of Staff as Judge Advocates: (1) officers of theUnited States Air Force, and (2) officers of other components of the AirForce of the United States on active duty detailed to The Judge AdvocateGeneral�s Department. Wherever the term �Office of The Judge AdvocateGeneral� has been heretofore used, such term shall be construed to referto The Judge Advocate General�s Department.

The organization and structure of the Judge Advocate General�s Depart-ment will be announced in an appropriate Air Force publication.

BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

HOYT S. VANDENBERGChief of Staff, United States Air Force


Edition of THE REPORTER not only celebrates that maturation,but also sets the stage for the Department’s entry into the 21st

Century as a critical component of tomorrow’s ExpeditionaryAerospace Force.

In this introductory article we will very briefly attempt toplace this celebratory effort in context by highlighting thehistorical lineage of the modern judge advocate, reviewingthe initial development of our Department, and tentatively,perhaps even somewhat presumptuously, speculating on thefuture environment in which it will function. The articles thatfollow will explore the Department’s heritage in much greaterdetail. As will become immediately apparent, it is a goldenheritage of which the almost 4,000 active duty, reserve andguard judge advocates, paralegals and civilians comprisingthe JAG family can be justifiably proud.

The Emergence of Military Legal SystemsThe practice of military law in today’s Air Force can trace its

roots to antiquity. It was the Roman Empire that first em-ployed a legal system for its military distinct from that govern-ing the general population. Underpinning this development

5050 Golden Years

was the unique organizational structure of the Roman govern-ment. The senior judicial officials in the empire were Praetors,officials subordinate only to the Roman leaders, Consuls.Praetors were also military commanders with responsibilityover two legions each.2 Interestingly, in addition to their “op-erational” duties (and the corresponding summary disciplin-ary authority they exercised as commanders), Praetors some-times served more formally as military “judges.” 3 They or anyother senior commander could delegate this judicial responsi-bility to a military Tribune, the principal assistant to the com-mander in matters involving routine discipline. Military lead-ers themselves,4 Tribunes could either sit alone or in concertwith other Tribunes when judging military offenders,5 and

LIEUTENANT C OLONEL MICHAEL N. S CHMITT

MAJOR J OSEPH E. COLE

Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Department:

A Brief Retrospective

Stability and growth � words often used to describe the desired qualities of a financialinvestment. These very qualities also distinguish the legal stewardship of the United StatesAir Force that has been the hallmark of The Air Force Judge Advocate General�s Depart-ment since its creation in 1949.1 Indeed, not unlike a successful investment, the JAGDepartment has matured nicely over the past half-century. This Special 50th Anniversary

Lieutenant Colonel Schmitt (B.A. and M.A., Southwest TexasState University; M.A., Naval War College; J.D., Universityof Texas; LL.M., Yale University) is Professor of Law, UnitedStates Air Force Academy. He is a member of the Texas Bar.

Major Cole (B.S., University of Missouri; J.D., Saint LouisUniversity) is Assistant Professor of Law, United States AirForce Academy. He is a member of the Missouri Bar.


applied customary “law,” rather than the written edicts en-forced by civilian judicial officers.6 In a sense then, Praetorswere precursors of present day Judge Advocate Generals,Tribunes might well be analogized to unit Staff Judge Advo-cates and military judges, and the applicable disciplinary stan-dards operated in a fashion not unlike that of Article 134 of theUniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ or Code).

The Roman precedent of commanders performing judicialfunctions remained a relative constant in the centuries thatfollowed. For instance, during the Middle Ages civil judgesalso served as military commanders who exercised “judicial”and disciplinary authority over their troops.7 This tradition ofunitary judicial authority and military leadership was in greatpart the product of feudal society, in which those with wealthand land served as warrior leaders of their fiefdoms and actedas arbiters of all disputes within their respective realms ofresponsibility.8

Over time, responsibility for civil and criminal matters relat-ing to those in the English military became concentrated in theperson of the Marshal.9 The Marshal’s Court is the primo-genitor of our own modern military court; hence-- “court-mar-tial.” Between 1385 and 1775, the Articles of War developedas a formal code of law for application in courts-martial.10 TheBritish Articles served as the model for our own Articles ofWar, adopted by the Second Continental Congress in 1775.11

As John Adams would note the following year when consid-ering revisions to the Articles, the British and Roman systems

“had carried two empires to the head of mankind” and there-fore “it would be vain for us to seek in our own invention…fora more complete system of military discipline.”12 In their vari-ous incarnations, these initial Articles would govern the U.S.military justice system in war and peace until the enactment ofthe Uniform Code of Military Justice following World WarII.13 The current Code retains as its purpose precisely thatwhich has undergirded military disciplinary systems through-out history, the preservation of good order and discipline.

The Formative YearsContemporaneously with issuance of the Articles, the Con-

tinental Congress elected the first Judge Advocate of the Army,William Tudor. 14 Although the position of Judge AdvocateGeneral existed from 1775-1802, it was not until 1849 that theposition was permanently established.15 By the start of theFirst World War, the number of officers in the Judge AdvocateGeneral’s Department had grown from one Lieutenant Colonelto 32 officers, including a Brigadier General as The Judge Ad-vocate General. A reserve program for attorneys had alsobeen established.16 In an early demonstration of the value ofthe total force concept, this reserve component performedadmirably during the huge mobilizations that occurred as ma-jor conflagrations beset the world in the years to follow.17 Bythe end of the Second World War, the size of the Departmentreached a historical high of over 2,000 members, four-fifths of

Founding Fathers:(clockwise fromabove left) the firstJASOC class; ColLindstrom; Maj GenHarmon and Presi-dent Eisenhower;and Majs Lafarque,Birnbaum, andMattoon.


whom had been in civilian practice prior to the outbreak of theconflict. 18

It was during World War Two (WWII) that the seeds of aseparate Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Department weresown. Even though an Army Air Corps had been establishedin 1926,19 it was not until creation of the “Army Air Forces” in1942 that separate legal counsel, in the form of the Office ofthe Air Judge Advocate of the Army, existed for the air com-ponent of the armed forces.20 Some 1, 200 officers were as-signed to the new organization, which was divided into sixdivisions: Military Justice; Military Affairs; Patents; Contractsand Claims; Litigation; and Legal Assistance.21

In much the same way that conflict generated the need forreorganization of the military during WWII, a growing realiza-tion that the United States was increasingly at odds with theSoviet Union and its “fellow travelers” — that a “Cold War”had begun — impelled dramatic change in the defense struc-ture of the United States. Most notably, the National SecurityAct of 1947 established a single Defense Department to re-place the former Departments of the Navy and War, central-ized intelligence functions in the new Central IntelligenceAgency, created the National Security Council, and set up aseparate Air Force.22 Less than a year later, the Air ForceMilitary Justice Act of June 1948 provided for “the adminis-tration of military justice within the United States Air Force”and created the position of The Judge Advocate General(TJAG).23 The new organization that resulted from this legis-lation consisted of 205 officers, 62 of whom transferred to theAir Force from the Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Depart-ment.24

Appointed to lead them as TJAG that September, and pro-moted directly from the rank of Colonel, was Major GeneralReginald C. Harmon. Called to active duty as a Major duringthe war, General Harmon had served in the Air Corps, primarilyas a procurement attorney. Following the war, he remained onactive duty as Staff Judge Advocate of Air Materiel Com-mand.25 His selection aptly signaled the significance thatprocurement law played, and continues to play, in a techno-logically-focused armed service such as the Air Force.

Within a year of General Harmon’s appointment, the Officeof the Judge Advocate General was modified into the JudgeAdvocate General’s Department,26 an organization that by thenhad grown to over 400 attorneys. Albeit the “new kid on theblock,” the Department certainly did not exist in the shadowof its Army and Navy counterparts. For instance, it was Gen-eral Harmon that Secretary of Defense James Forrestal se-lected to lead the joint effort to codify the laws pertaining to

the Department of Defense and the various services.27 Simi-larly, the Air Force initiated the reporter system for judicialopinions still employed today throughout the armed services.28

Although General Harmon later confessed to being sur-prised by his selection as TJAG,29 history demonstrates thathe was the right person to lay the foundation for the Depart-ment. Drawing on his management and leadership experiencesas an elected official30 and successful civilian practitioner,General Harmon organized the Department along clear lines offunctional responsibility.31 Perhaps of greatest import in theyears to follow was his decision to structure the new organi-zation as a department rather than a corps.32 He perceptivelyunderstood that the profession would function much moreeffectively if judge advocates remained staff officers in theconventional management infrastructure of the Air Force; theywould be part of the team itself, not an external entity dispens-ing legal advice without a stake in the process. As GeneralHarmon simply noted, “I thought we ought to be part of thefamily.”33

This paradigm continues to infuse the Air Force approachtoward legal functions even today. Indeed, the newest TJAG,Major General William A. Moorman, recently acknowledgedthe determinative impact of this vision on the Department: “Itwas [General Harmon’s] vision that Air Force judge advo-cates should be, and remain, a part of the basic operational AirForce. He believed that JAGs were not just lawyers in uni-form. Rather, we were and are AF officers who happen also tobe lawyers.”34

�The most important qualities of judge advocate personnel � sound-ness of moral principle and character or, in simple words, absolute hon-esty. . .So, when you have reached your legal conclusions and renderedyour advice, stand firm behind it. Your client, whether he be com-mander or accused, a subject of legal assistance or a claimant, willappreciate your integrity. . . .� ~ former Chief of Staff, General George S. Brown

MajorGeneralHarmon,the firstTJAG.


In the early years, the organization consisted of the Exami-nation Division, the Civil Law Directorate, and the ExecutiveOffice. The Examination Division (soon to become the Mili-tary Justice Division) reviewed all court-martial records re-quiring TJAG action; the Civil Law Directorate included anarray of functional divisions such as claims, legislation, pat-ents, and military affairs; and the Executive Office was re-sponsible for assignment and certification of judge advo-cates.35 It proved a flexible, responsive, and effective struc-ture for the fledgling Air Force and Judge Advocate Depart-ment. A case in point is the Examination Division. The cre-ation of a separate Air Force resulted in the transfer of hun-dreds of court-martial cases requiring appellate review to theAir Force from the Army. Although none of the original judgeadvocates transferred from the Army had any board of reviewexperience,36 by December 1949 the backlog had been ex-hausted and the Division was operating normally.37 Anotherexample is the Legislative Division of the Civil Law Director-ate. The creation of a new service predictably generated aflurry of administrative and legislative activity. Respondingto this need, General Harmon poured resources and personnelinto the Division; by 1949 it was one of the largest in theDepartment.38

As the Department struggled to organize itself, the verysubstance of military law was being revolutionized. DuringWWII, a sense of general dissatisfaction with the prosecu-tion and administration of military justice had surfaced. Whilethe pre-war court-martial system seemed to work well enoughfor a small primarily professional military force comprised ofRegular officers and enlisted personnel, it proved unable toefficiently meet the demands the rapid and extensive wartimemobilization placed on it. Particular concern focused on thesheer number of courts-martial, and the perceived harshnessof their sentences, during the war.39 Additionally, command-ers were often viewed as exercising unlawful (or at least inap-propriate) influence on the judicial process.40

In response, and following completion of a plethora of post-war reports and studies regarding these issues,41 Congresspassed the Elston Act in what was effectively an interim effortto address the perceived ills in the judicial process. However,Congress continued to address the practice of military justiceand in 1950 enacted the Uniform Code of Military Justice(UCMJ).42 With the effective date (May 1951) of the UCMJfast-approaching, the need for an accompanying Manual forCourts-Martial (MCM) became pressing. Fortunately, the ser-vices had anticipated passage of the UCMJ and created the

Flying Status or Judge AdvocateQ: I believe it was while you were at Eglin that the matter of being a legal officer and still being on flying status came to a turningpoint?

M/G Cheney: Yes, that’s right, it was in 1952. The notification of action proposed by the Air Force went out to all judge advocateson flying status in about March of that year. The notice was to the effect that all such judge advocates would be removed fromflying status unless they objected. If they objected they would cease performing judge advocate duties and be assigned to dutiesthat required an aeronautical rating. It came down to a matter of deciding which career you wanted to follow, a legal career or aflying career. By that time I had extensive experience as a military lawyer, having performed such duties for six years. Also, I wasrated as a navigator, senior navigator, and not as a pilot. And it had become pretty obvious to me that if you wanted to performduties as a rated officer, you had better be rated as a pilot. There were very few jobs requiring a rating that were open to ratingsother than the pilot rating. For instance, at that time, you had to be a pilot to hold a command position. It was clear to me that ifyou were rated other than as a pilot, your career was going to be as a staff officer. And as I saw it, if I was going to be in a staffposition, I would much rather it be as a member of a profession, in my case the law. And so I chose to remain a judge advocate,even though it meant a decrease in pay. The decision cost those who made it their flying pay and that required some adjustment.

Q: Do you think it was the right action for the Air Force to take?

M/G Cheney: Yes, I do. I never had any complaint with it. There were good reasons for it. For example, if you are a judge advocateand are on flying status, you have to take time out of the office to maintain your rating and that can mean days at a time. Whenyou do that, someone else in the office has to do the work you would have done. Not only that, you were getting paid more thanthe fellow who did your work. That causes resentment. And then, too, looking at it from the Air Force’s point of view, why paysomeone to keep proficient in a specialty that it probably won’t be able to use him in?

(Excerpt from NAVIGATING THE LAW, Oral History of Major General James S. Cheney, former TJAG)


Interdepartmental Working Group for the Preparation of theManual for Courts-Martial in 1950 to prepare a draft. On May31, 1951, both the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts-Martialtook effect.43 The military services would thereafter share aunified source of military justice administration that creatednew levels of due process and review, addressed unlawfulcommand influence, and changed procedures to ensure theintegration of lawyers earlier and more often into the system.

The Air Force’s commitment to the incipient system wasfirm. An expression of this covenant was provided by thenBrigadier General Albert M. Kuhfeld at a conference of AirForce judge advocates in 1951. He “warned the audience thattrying to skirt the new law would not be acceptable [and]singled out for prohibition the idea of appointing to a courtsome lawyer who would act as a sub rosa law member. Thiswas explicitly contrary to the spirit of the code [and accordingto General Kuhfeld] would not be countenanced.”44 Today,of course, General Kuhfeld’s legacy of fidelity to the law andthe system in which it is applied is memorialized in the annualaward in his name presented to the Air Force’s outstandingyoung judge advocate.

While implementation of the UCMJ provided a measure ofstability to the administration of justice for the nascent AirForce, the Department struggled with personnel issues of itsown. In particular, a fair number of judge advocates at the timewere rated officers on flying status. As a result of budgetarypressures, in 1950 the Air Force began considering removal ofall rated personnel not directly involved in flying from flyingstatus, thereby effecting savings of flight pay. General Harmonunsuccessfully opposed the proposal. However, when thedecision to remove JAGs from flying status was made, Gen-eral Harmon convinced Air Force Chief of Staff General HoytS. Vandenberg to permit those affected to choose betweenflying and law. Though General Vandenberg feared a massexodus from the Department, General Harmon argued that he

would “rather lose more than I can afford to lose than to keepsomebody who doesn’t want to stay.”45 Ultimately, 98 judgeadvocates chose to remain on flying status.46 Among themwas Captain Russell E. Dougherty, who explained to GeneralHarmon that “I had one little girl, and now I’ve had twin boys.I’m getting a more expensive family, and I can’t afford to losemy flying status. I’d much rather stay in the law businessthan leave, but I’ve just got to do it.”47 Captain Doughertywould go on to earn four stars and command Strategic AirCommand.

During the twelve years of General Harmon’s tenure as TheJudge Advocate General, certainly one of the greatest chal-lenges faced by the Department was the Korean War.48 Untilthe Korean Peninsula became engulfed in armed conflict, theDepartment had centered its efforts on organizational matters.The onset of war refocused attention on providing essentiallegal support for military operations. Thrust into the opera-tional environment, JAGs and legal specialists, including largenumbers of reservists deployed to South Korea, performedadmirably under austere conditions. Their contributions, andthe circumstances under which they labored, are aptly de-scribed by one participant, Colonel Walter L. Lewis, in thepages of this special edition. 49

The conflict did have one unanticipated result. As warbroke out, General Harmon directed the creation of the JAGSchool at Maxwell Air Force Base in 1950 to more effectivelyand quickly train the judge advocates the Air Force wouldneed in that conflict. Not unexpectedly, the 14 week programtended to focus on the new UCMJ and Manual for Courts-Martial, although a block of instruction on Civil Law was in-cluded in the curriculum. In the abstract, General Harmon wasnot enamored with the idea of a JAG School. Harkening backto his civilian experiences, he questioned why the Air Forcewould need such an institution if civilian law firms did not,relying instead on on-the-job training. Thus, the school was


closed in 1955, a mere two years following the Korean Wararmistice; the motivating event for the school gone, GeneralHarmon simply saw no need for it. Not coincidentally, the AirForce JAG school reopened in 1968 at the peak of the nextmajor international armed conflict; the Vietnam War.50

The Department MaturesBy 1960, the Department was well-established, with over

1,200 officers on active duty. 51 That year, Major GeneralHarmon retired, and his deputy, Major General Kuhfeld wasappointed TJAG. Not only had the Department grown in num-bers, but its functional responsibilities were continually ex-panding as well. While the primary emphasis remained, andwill always be, the preservation of good order and disciplinethrough the administration of military justice, other areas suchas procurement, foreign law, claims, tax and litigation, patents,military affairs, and legal assistance demanded increased at-tention in the years that followed.52 Of course, the Depart-ment continued to emphasize, as General Harmon had alwaysinsisted, the judge advocate’s role as the commander’s advi-sor on matters far beyond those strictly legal in nature.53 Thiswillingness to contribute beyond the textual boundaries ofthe law continues as a hallmark of JAG professionalism.

The maturing process for the Department was quite appar-ent in the field of military justice,54 a process well chronicledin later articles in this special edition. Several events meritparticular mention. Among the most important was passageof the Military Justice Act of 1968.55 This legislation led toestablishment of an independent Air Force judiciary and cre-ation of the Air Force Court of Military Review. Henceforth,military judges would replace law officers in Air Force trials.Four years later, the first steps toward independent defenseservices were taken when the Secretary of Defense directedthe Task Force on the Administration of Military Justice in theArmed Forces to review the state of military justice. As aresult of the Task Force’s report, the Secretary directed eachof the services to develop plans by which defense serviceswould become the direct responsibility of the respective TJAG.

The Air Force re-sponse came in theform of the AreaDefense Counsel Program, first implemented in January of 1974,and formally approved by Air Force Chief of Staff GeneralDavid Jones the following year.56 It was also during this pe-riod that major rewrites of the Manual for Courts-Martial oc-curred, first in 1969 and later in 1984,57 and that the jurisdic-tional reach of military courts was settled by the SupremeCourt in Solario v. U.S.58 Henceforth, military tribunals couldexercise jurisdiction based solely on the status of the accusedas a member of the armed forces.

Yet, it was in areas of law other than military justice that themost significant changes in the structure, organization, andfunctions of the Department occurred, for it had to anticipateand respond to new and unfamiliar trends in the practice oflaw. To place the extent of the evolution in perspective, andalthough it is difficult to imaginenow, former TJAG Major GeneralJames S. Cheney has stated thathe had no recollection of any en-vironmental law issues arising

(Clockwise fromtop left) SSgtStephensrecords a court-martial; Capts S.Meadows, C.Brubaker, and L.Matthews(1977); Lt Cols DiMaria and Ingradon the A-10production line.

Photo courtesy of Lt Col Meadows


during his tenure as TJAG between 1969-1973.59 Today, bycontrast, environmental law is a robust and growing practicein all the armed services. Medical law provides another excel-lent example of how the Department was forced to evolve.When medical malpractice litigation in the private sector be-gan to rise, the importance of medical-legal expertise becameabundantly apparent, so much so that in 1965 the SurgeonGeneral of the Air Force contacted the TJAG to emphasize theneed for medical law expertise.60 The response came in theform of the Forensic Medicine Program and establishment of anew specialty, the Forensic Medicine Consultant Advisor, fore-runner to today’s Medical Law Consultant.

The Department’s approach to the increasing diversity andcomplexity of its practice in these and other fields provedinnovative and visionary. Aside from organizational responsessuch as creation of the Central Labor Law Office and identi-fication of regional environmental counsel, it took three par-ticularly noteworthy steps to bolster JAG ability to handleemerging issues. First, the Department committed very early

on to education, not only in the emphasis placed on the JAGSchool in the wake of its 1968 rebirth, but also on graduatedegree programs. Since at least 1962, judge advocates haveattended Master of Laws education program at civilian insti-tutions and, in the last decade, The Army Judge AdvocateGeneral’s School. In fact, it was in 1962 that future TJAGMajor General Walter Reed earned his Masters Degree fromMcGill University in Montreal. By the 1970s, an average of 10judge advocates a year entered LL.M programs, a numberwhich has grown to an average of 25. Wisely, the Departmenthas always allocated the available positions based upon theevolving nature of its own practice. As an example, LL.M.programs in computer law and in arbitration and mediationhave recently been approved.

The second response was more momentous still; creationof a cadre of enlisted legal experts. In May 1955, the Air Forceapproved a new specialty within the administrative career field— Legal Specialist. Three years later, it became its own careerfield. In 1970, Chief Master Sergeant Steve Swigonski was

One of the most positive changes has been the evolution of the Department itself...we now recognize our many dedicated paralegals, civilian attorneys, and civilian support personnel as members of the Department. ~ Major General Walter D.Reed

Paralegals train to be court reporters


During World War II...the function of Staff Judge Advocate was usuallydischarged as an additional duty by an officer who, whether or not hewas a lawyer, was assigned other principal duties that were consideredto be more important. ~ Major GeneralJames S. Cheney

selected as the first Special Assistant to The Judge AdvocateGeneral for Legal Airman Affairs, and in 1988 Legal Specialistswere redesignated “paralegals.” The presence of these well-trained specialists to assist judge advocates, and in manycases to take on judge advocate tasks, has proven a forcemultiplier of inestimable value.

Finally, the Department recognized very early on that tech-nology could also serve as a force multiplier. Most notably, in1963 the Air Force received authorization to develop and testthe Legal Information Through Electronics (LITE) system incooperation with the University of Pittsburgh’s Health LawCenter. Envisioned as a full text legal information retrievalsystem, LITE was quickly a success, an understandable phe-nomenon given that it was far more advanced than anythingavailable to the civilian bar. Although responsibility for LITEinitially fell to the Air Force Accounting and Finance Center,in 1969 control and supervision of the system was transferredto The Judge Advocate General. Five years later, its name waschanged to the now familiar “FLITE.” Since then, FLITE hasbecome an essential component of virtually every judgeadvocate’s practice, whatever the nature of that practice.

The Department’s achievements as it matured can be attrib-uted to a commitment to developing our primary assets, thejudge advocates and paralegals who comprise the Depart-ment, and providing them the tools necessary to cope withthe rapid pace of change they faced. The success of thiscommitment was perhaps best illustrated during the conflictthat tore at the very fabric of American society, the VietnamWar.

Judge Advocates were thrown into a hostile cauldron re-plete with drugs, racial unrest, pervasive moral problems, andthe like. Veterans of the conflict recount tales completely alien

to most of those serving the Department today. For instance,Colonel Michael Emerson tells the story of the Commander ofthe Aerial Port Squadron at Tan Son Nhut who supplied histroops with marijuana...and then smoked it with them.61 Colo-nel Richard Rothenburg relates how an Academy graduateshot himself to get a Purple Heart and how a guard shot aVietnamese man who stopped a woman from disrobing forhim.62 Other accounts are found in several of the articles inthis edition. Given the environment in which they operated,especially in the area of military justice, judge advocates ac-quitted themselves in exemplary fashion.

Foward Into The FutureThe demise of the Cold War has effected profound change

in the global security situation, changes that have directlyimpacted the functions of the Department. During the ColdWar, the Air Force was garrison-based, operating from fixedlocations and with large contingents permanently deployedforward. Our potential enemies were well defined and oper-ated across fixed and easily identifiable geopolitical borders.Resultingly, operations were planned months, even years, inadvance of likely execution.

The Persian Gulf War signaled a changed reality. That con-flict surprised the United States and the world with the speedby which it unfolded. The unexpected was a new phenom-enon for the Air Force and its lawyers. At the same time, thescale and scope of the international response the Iraqi attackprovoked was equally unprecedented, for until the collapse ofthe Soviet empire, international responses to global breachesof peace had been muted by the existence of off-setting ve-toes in the United Nations Security Council. Now, however,the UN Charter security scheme seemed to work, as forces

JAG Departmentmembers reap thebenefits of beingteam members andreceive incentiverides. (clockwisefrom top left)Capt C. Plummer;TSgt E. Smith; andMaj T. Hollingsworth.

Ph

oto

s co

urt

esy

of

Lt

Co

l M

ea

do

ws

(of

Ma

jH

ollin

gsw

orth

), T

Sgt

Sm

ith a

nd C

apt P

lum

mer


from countries as diverse as Argentina, Australia, Czechoslo-vakia, Denmark, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the United King-dom conducted combined operations to expel the Iraqis fromoccupied Kuwait.63

Although the Air Force JAG response to the immediatedeployment of large numbers of U.S. troops failed to operateaccording to any pre-existing plan,64 the 49 judge advocatesand 46 paralegals who went to the Gulf performed magnifi-cently once there,65 whether providing legal assistance, pro-cessing military justice actions, or scrubbing Air Tasking Or-ders for compliance with the law of armed conflict.66 WhereasVietnam demonstrated that the Department was maturing well,DESERT STORM proved that it had truly come of age.

The Department’s maturity has been evidenced repeatedlysince the Gulf War cease-fire was signed in 1991. In particular,peace operations, from small scale peace-keeping to robustpeace-enforcement and peace-making, have captured centerstage. The operations, made possible by the snapping of theSecurity Council superpower deadlock, have become part ofthe JAG lore: DENY FLIGHT, SOUTHERN WATCH, PRO-VIDE COMFORT/NORTHERN WATCH, PROVIDE RELIEF/RESTORE HOPE, DESERT FOX. As of February 1999, 28 judgeadvocates and paralegals were deployed in support of theseand similar operations worldwide.67 In the new global secu-rity environment, our Expeditionary Aerospace Force and itsAerospace Expeditionary Forces are serviced by expedition-ary judge advocates with newfound expertise in combat claims,temporary status of forces agreements, deployment fiscal law,and rules of engagement.

As in meeting the demands of earlier evolutions in the na-ture of the JAG practice, the Department has aggressivelyresponded to the changed needs of the Air Force. An Officeof Operations Law - Long Range Planning reporting directlyto the TJAG was activated in 1997.68 The JAG School and theOffice of Staff Judge Advocate, Air Combat Command havejoined forces to develop a new, more realistic Operations LawCourse. Air Force judge advocates are increasingly active inthe international legal arena, serving, for example, as instruc-tors at the International Institute of Humanitarian Law andadjunct faculty with the Defense International Institute of In-ternational Legal Studies. Clearly, the Department has livedup to Major General Harmon’s prediction; judge advocateshave become an essential part of the operational team.

What does the future hold? Of course, predictive effortsare speculative at best. Perhaps, though, we should look backover the past decade to ask what qualities our Departmentmust have to prosper in the near-term. Obviously, recent ex-periences teach us that we must be prepared for the unex-pected. This will require legal functions to be immediatelydeployable anywhere in the world; given destination “un-known,” we must, of course, also be worldly, that is, cognizantof events throughout the global community and comfortablein remote and unusual environments. In the future, JAGshave to be prepared to operate jointly with our sister servicesand in combined operations with allies that we would not oth-erwise imagine. Crisis action planning will have to come eas-ily to tomorrow’s judge advocate and s/he will have to under-

stand the client’s business, the conduct of aerial operations,better than has ever previously been the case.69 Commanderswill have no time, and certainly little patience, for legal advis-ers who cannot advise them on their terms.

And the more distant future? Only time will tell what typeof practice the young officers in the Judge Advocate StaffOfficer Course (JASOC) today will engage in when they fillour boots. Will the “revolution in military affairs” further alterthe nature of operational law?70 Will US national securitypolicy require continued maintenance of permanent overseasbases? To what extent will the military privatize? What moralcompass will guide us in the next century? These and similarseemingly unanswerable questions will determine the futureof the Department; it is, therefore, our professional obligationto seek them out and actively reflect on them.71

Ultimately, the prognosis is good, for over time those whohave gone before us have crafted an institutional culture thatwill continue to serve the Department well into the next millen-nium. It is a culture that reflects the core values underpinningthe Air Force itself — integrity first, service before self, excel-lence in all we do. There can be little doubt that the JudgeAdvocate General’s Department is well positioned to continueits tradition of responsively meeting the legal needs of the AirForce and the United States.

(Clockwisefrom left)TSgtR. Pacheco,during DesertStorm; Col J.Swanson inSaudi Arabia;a JAG inVietnam.


1 United States Air Force – Administration of Military Justice,Pub. L. 80-775, ch. 648, 62 Stat. 1014, June 25, 1948.2 During the peak of the Roman Empire, a legion comprised4,200 troops. C. E. BRAND, ROMAN MILITARY LAW 47 (1968).3 While the Praetors were military commanders, they werealso civilian political officials. At some point, they becamemore involved with the administration of the city, and the armieswere then generally commanded by the Consuls. Id. at 63.4 The Tribune’s position in the military was quasi-political.He enjoyed the rank and dignity associated with his militaryposition, yet he was fairly insignificant in the battle command.Id. at 50.5 Id. at 77.6 Id. at 23.7 JAMES SNEDECKER, A BRIEF HISTORY OF COURTS-MARTIAL 4(1954).8 An example of this can be found in the Dooms of KingEdward the Elder. Delegating his authority to his lesser lords,King Edward created the following doom (law): “King Edward’scommands to all his reeves: that you deem such right doomsas you know to be most right and as stand in the doom-book.Nor for any cause shall you fail to declare the customary law;and [you shall see to it] that a day is set for every cause , whenthat which you decide concerning it shall be carried out.”CARL STEPHENSON FREDERICK GEORGE MARCHAM, SOURCES OF

ENGLISH CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY, Vol. I, A SELECTION OF

DOCUMENTS FROM A.D. 600 TO THE INTERREGUUM 12 (1972).9 SNEDEKER, supra note 7, at 13-14.10 Id. at 16.11 Id. at 20.12 THE ARMY LAWYER: A HISTORY OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE

GENERAL’S CORPS, 1775-1975 (1975), at 11.13 Act of May 8, 1950, ch. 169, 64 Stat. 108 (1950).14 As a summary history of the Air Force Judge AdvocateGeneral Department, this article focuses on the Air Force’sArmy heritage. The development of military law in the UnitedStates Navy followed a different path. Originally tracing itsroots from customary British law, naval law became much moreregulatory in nature after the Constitution of the United Statesin 1789. Inasmuch as the Constitution gave Congress thepower “to provide and maintain a Navy,” the service becameincreasingly subject to rules and regulations enacted byCongress. In 1862, Congress passed the Articles for theGovernment of the Navy, known in the vernacular as the“Rocks and Shoals.” This code, and its subsequent revisions,remained in effect until the enactment of the UCMJ in 1951.Commander EDWARD M. BYRNE, MILITARY LAW 5 (2d ed. 1976).15 History of the Office of the Judge Advocate General, JAGL. REV., July-Aug. 1968, at 6, 6.16 ARMY LAWYER, supra note 12, at 107.17 Id. at 159.18 Id. at 186.19 Initially, the “Air Force” consisted of the Aviation Sectionof the Signal Corps. In 1918. the Air Service was created as aseparate branch in the Army. The Air Corps Act of 1926established the Service as a Corps, though the change did nothave great substantive effect. Will H. Carroll, A Short Account

of the Early Years of the Office of the Judge Advocate General,THE REPORTER, Feb. 1979, at 2, 2.20 History of the Office of the Judge Advocate General, supranote 15, at 6. The change came with President Roosevelt’sissuance of Executive Order 9082 on 28 February 1942. In it hedirected that the Army be reorganized under the Chief of Staffinto the Army Ground Force, the Army Air Forces, and theServices of Supply. The Office of the Air Judge Advocate fellunder the Deputy Chief of the Air Staff. Interestingly, nocorresponding office was created for either of the other twoorganizations, their legal advice continuing to be provided bythe existing Army JAG Department. Id. at 7.21 Id.22 National Security Act of 1947, ch. 343, 61 Stat. 495 (1947).23 Supra note 1.24 History of the Office of the Judge Advocate General, supranote 15, at 8.25 Id.26 USAF GO # 7, 25 Jan 1949, Chronology and Personnel List,on file at the Judge Advocate General’s School.27 Letter from Major General Harmon to Major General ThomasBruton, August 4, 1983, reprinted in THE REPORTER, Fall 1983,at n.p.28 Id.29The USAF Judge Advocate General’s Department: AHistory, THE REPORTER, Dec. 1995, at 32, 32.30 Major General Harmon served two terms as the mayor ofUrbana, Illinois, from 1929-1933. THE USAF JAG BULLETIN

REPORTER, Mar. 1960, at 3, 5.31 Maj Gen Harmon’s management style of avoidingbureaucracy and empowering subordinates with authority wasunusual in the structured military of the 1940s and 1950s, buthas been the hallmark of Air Force leadership for many years.Carroll, supra note 19 at 7.32 Traditionally, a corps is a body of professionals treatedseparately from the line of the military, whereas, a departmentis an organizational component of the overall military function.The Early Years, Reorganization, THE REPORTER, Dec. 1996, at32, 32. Interestingly, in 1948 the Army went the other way,transforming itself from a Department to a Corps. The SelectiveService Act of 1948, Pub. L. 80-625.33 The Harmon Years Continued, THE REPORTER, Sept. 1996, at28, 28.34 TJAG Speech, Jan. 27, 1999, http://aflsa.jag.af.mil/groups/air force/speeches/TJAG investitutre.htm.35 On the organization of the Department during this period,see Carroll, supra note 19, at 5-7.36 Recollection of Major General Kuhfeld. Carroll, supra note19 at 5.37 Id.38 Id.39 Approximately two million convictions were handed downby courts-martial during World War II. WILLIAM T. GENEROUS,JR., SWORDS AND SCALES14 (1973), citing Congressional floordebates on the UCMJ.40 Id. at 15.41 See discussion in GENEROUS, supra note 39 at 14-21.


42 Act of May 5, 1950, 65 Stat. 108. The legislation alsoprovided for establishment of a civilian appellate court, theCourt of Military Review.43 On this subject, see The USAF Judge Advocate General’sDepartment: A History (The Early Years, continued), THE

REPORTER, Dec. 1995, at 32, 33-34.44 GENEROUS, supra note 39, at 68, citing Judge AdvocateGeneral, Conference of the JAG, USAF, April 9-10, 1951, BollingAFB, Report, on file at Stanford University Library GovernmentDocuments Collection.45 The Harmon Years Continued, supra note 33, at 29.46 Historian, THE REPORTER, March 1997, AT 31, 31.47 The Harmon Years Continued, supra note 33, at 30.48 On the subject of Judge Advocates in the Korean War, seeColonel (ret.) Walter L. Lewis, The JAG in the Korean War,THE REPORTER, Winter 1984, at 2.49 See id., reprinted in this edition.50 The Jag School, THE REPORTER, June 1995, at 31, 31.51 Major General Reginald Harmon, Our Mission and Function,JAG BULLETIN, March 1959, at 4, 5.52 Id. at 5-9.53 See Major General Harmon’s comments in The Harmon YearsContinued, supra note 33, at 28.54 There have been major criticisms of the system over theyears despite changes in it. See, e.g., JOHN M. LINDLEY, “ASOLDIER IS ALSO A CITIZEN,” THE CONTROVERSY OVER MILITARY

JUSTICE, 1917-1920 (1990); ROBERT SHERRILL, MILITARY JUSTICE

IS TO JUSTICE AS MILITARY MUSIC IS TO MUSIC (1969).55 Public Law 90-632, Oct. 24, 1968.56 Major Lynn G. Norton, The Area Defense Counsel Program,THE REPORTER, this edition.57 See the Manual for Courts-Martial United States (1998Edition), Appendix 25, for a historical look at the executiveorders that have amended the manual since 1984.58 483 U.S. 435 (1987), reversing its decision requiring service-connectedness. O’Callahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258 (1969).59 Oral History of Major General James S. Cheney, USAF (ret.),“Navigating the Law,” (March 10-12, 1992).60 Walter D. Phillips, The Forensic Medicine Program, THE

REPORTER, Aug. 1978, at 23, 23.61 Interview with Colonel Michael Emerson, Air Force Academy,(12 March 1999).62 Phone interview by AFJAG School with Colonel RichardRothenburg, (27 January 1999).63 The Coalition effort is discussed in DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,FINAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: CONDUCT OF THE PERSIAN GULF WAR

(April 1992), at app. I.64 See Colonel Scott L. Silliman, JAG Goes to War: The DesertStorm Deployment, 37 A.F.L.Rev. 85 (1994).65 In direct support of Operations DESERT SHIELD/STORMas of 11 March 1991. Id. at 91.66 See generally, Steven Keeva, Lawyers in the War Room,ABA JOURNAL, Dec. 1991, at 52.67 Interview with Lt Col Terrie M. Gent, HQ USAF/JA-O, (15March 1999).68 The JA-O website is at: aflsa.jag.af.mil/GROUPS/AIR_FORCE/JA-O.

69 Useful introductions to the operational world are: TOM

CLANCY, FIGHTER WING (1995); Robert A. Coe and Michael N.Schmitt, Fighter Ops for Shoe Clerks, 42 A.F.L. REV. 49 (1997).70 On the “revolution in military affairs,” see WILLIAM S. COHEN

(SECRETARY OF DEFENSE), ANNUAL REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND

THE CONGRESS, ch. 13 (The Revolution in Military Affairs andJoint Vision 2010) (1998); Dennis M. Drew, Technology andthe American Way of War: Worshipping a False Idol? A.F. J.LOGISTICS, Winter 1987, at 21; James R. Fitzsimonds, The ComingMilitary Revolution: Opportunities and Risks, PARAMETERS,Summer 1995, at 30; Dan Goure, Is There a Military-TechnicalRevolution in America’s Future?, WASHINGTON QUART.,Autumn 1993, at 175; Andrew F. Krepinevich, Cavalry toComputer: The Pattern of Military Revolutions, in STRATEGY

AND FORCE PLANNING 582 (Naval War College Faculty eds.,1995); Andrew F. Krepinevich, Keeping Pace with the Military-Technical Revolution, ISSUES IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY,Summer 1994, at 23; Kenneth F. McKenzie, Beyond Ludditesand Magicians: Examining the MTR, PARAMETERS, Summer1995, at 15; Abhi Shelat, An Empty Revolution: MTRExpectations Fall Short, HARV. INT’L REV., Summer 1994, at 52.71 For instance, on the future and international law, see CharlesJ. Dunlap, Jr., Technology and the 21st Century Battlefied:Recomplicating Moral Life for the Statesman and the Soldier,U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute Monograph(Jan. 1999); Michael N. Schmitt, Bellum Americanum: The U.S.View of Twenty-First Century War and Its PossibleImplications for the Law of Armed Conflict, 19 MICH. J. INT’ L

L.1051 (1998); Michael N. Schmitt, Future War and thePrinciple of Distinction, forthcoming in 1999 ISRAEL YEARBOOK

ON HUMAN RIGHTS and YALE HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT

JOURNAL (1999).

Does this edition remind you of a story?

Do you remember somethingdifferently than one of our authors?

Did you find a photograph that shouldbe preserved?

Send comments, additions, corrections, orphotographs to the editor

CPD/JAR150 Chennault Circle

Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6418

Or fax or call(334) 953-2802 / DSN 493-2802, fax - 7866


An Australian Tropical TownThe following article and photograph were published in THE REPORTER, Vol. 12, No. 1, 8 Fall 1983.

MILITARY LAW AT PORT MORESBY, 1943

A Memoir

COLONEL MYRON L. BIRNBAUM,

RETIRED

Port Moresby, New Guinea, 1943 – the shell of an Aus-tralian tropical town surrounded by miles of open areassprinkled with trees, into which thousands of Ameri-

can and Australian troops were moving in preparation for aneffort to dislodge the Japanese –first, from the shore of theisland and then on northward.

I1 arrived on the scene in late 1942—an artillery officer witha law degree and a year of practice plus about two years ofactive duty behind me. I had been in a troopship in mid-Pacific on 7 December 1941, flown into and evacuated out ofJava, stationed briefly at several Australian cities, before Iarrived as a replacement at what was then an Aussie depen-dency. As the result of transportation delays, the job forwhich I had been requested was already filled when I arrived,but I met a San Francisco lawyer named Dodd McRae, wholike many others had been turned from civilian life into a judgeadvocate through the wartime JAG School at Ann Arbor. Hewas there on TDY from Australia, charged with expeditingsome general courts-martial, especially nine sodomy casesreflecting a homosexual “ring.” He was delighted to have anattorney at hand, albeit a tyro, who might defend the cases.

How I got eight out of nine acquittals and/or “busts” isanother story. The first reaction was a proposal to shanghaime to Milne Bay, farther east on the island and even lessattractive-there were enemy forces still menacing that base.But Dodd, in standard reaction, said, “Nonsense-make himyour TJA.” And thus I began some fourteen months as[al]most all the law there was at Moresby.

The town itself marked the end of a peninsula enclosing alandlocked bay, much like San Francisco, except that the dis-tance from the sea beach to the bay was less than a half mile.There was only one pier area alongside the town with deepenough anchorage for ocean-going vessels, and that of mod-

est length. However, near the far end of the bay, there wasdeep-water anchorage. The American engineers had built avery substantial pier into deep water which would accommo-date several ships. The native population had been moved“across the Bay”—off-limits to Yanks and Aussies.

Fanned out on both sides of the main road up-country fromthe town were military installations-tents, improvised framestructures, and thatched huts. The Papuans quickly and effi-ciently made excellent versions of the latter, and an approvedrequest to the Aussie “town major” would promptly producea handsome structure of almost any desired size, with a modi-cum of interior partitions, waterproof and relatively cool inthe prevailing heat and humidity. Many of the units wereservice units-port battalions (i.e., stevedores), engineers, quar-termaster, ordnance, medical, some light antiaircraft. How-ever, the most notable units were elements of the Army AirCorps. In the air assault against the Japanese on the northshore of the island and farther beyond, I recall seeing in theMoresby area at various times and in various numbers: P-38s,P-39s, P-40s, P-47s, A-20s, B-17s, B-24s, B-25s, B-26s, andinnumerable C-46s and C-47s, occasional C-53s, on mail andcourier runs from the States, and some Aussie planes, mostlypassing through. B-25s were the workhorses, performing tasksnever envisioned by the designers, often based on modifica-tions and techniques devised by the legendary Pappy Myers.The number of airstrips built in the area reached six, primarilydesignated by their distance from “town” – 3, 5, 7, 12, 14, and16 mile. (They had names, too – Ward’s (the original), Jackson(still the postwar airfield), Laloki, Bomana.)

It would take pages to set the stage, but our charter is tosay something of the court-martial practice in this dubious

Myron L. Birnbaum, A.B., J.D., Stanford University, retiredfrom The Judge Advocate General’s Department of the AirForce in 1971, in the grade of Colonel. He is presently em-ployed in civil service and serves as the Special Assistant forClemency and Rehabilitation Matters in the Directorate ofthe USAF Judiciary.

Capta inBirnbaumat PortMoresby,1943.U.S. Army SignalCorps Photo.


cases; sleeping on post and leaving post;4 possibly a falseclaim or perjury; a sprinkling of others. [There were] fewAWOLs or desertions-nowhere to go. Almost no drunken-ness except when someone made jungle juice, as MacArthurrather effectively barred alcoholic beverages from the area.No rape-almost no women with the forces, and the nativewomen were carefully kept beyond off-limits boundaries bythe Australians. I did prosecute and obtained convictions onthree murders as capital cases; there may have been one ortwo manslaughters as well.

1 The articles which stem from this typewriter usually areassiduous in avoiding the first person. But this falls in thecategory of war stories, and we’ll let the I’s and me’s fall wherethey may.2 Though this shocks contemporary practitioners, I still findno problem with it. As investigating officer, I was meticulous,as I knew I would have to rely on my work. As prosecutor, Icould always depend on the investigation; I had done it myself.Many countries use such a system.3 Until shortly before WWII, statute precluded Army units(not HQs) from utilizing any labor-saving devices; this includedtypewriters. Companies and batteries in the 1930s generallyhad one beat-up typewriter, purchased from “company funds.”These Royals, purchased by the thousands in 1939-40 or so,became ubiquitous in the Army during the War.4 One of the knottiest legal points was that these were distinctoffenses. If a sentinel was found sleeping, the greatestprecision was needed in defining the limits of his post. Awrong guess resulted in acquittal.

paradise. The law of the time was the Articles of War asexplicated in the 1928 Manual for Courts-Martial (some minorchanges led to a 1943 revised preprint). The only other avail-able law book was the Digest of Opinions of the Judge Advo-cate General, 1912-1940. My work included prosecution ofspecial and general courts-martial, as well as occasionally act-ing as summary court for cases arising within the “Base Sec-tion” itself.

To say that everything was simpler than 1983 practice un-derstates the obvious. True, there was an investigation under[Article of War] 70 before a general court-martial, but I actedas investigating officer and then as trial judge advocate in thesame case.2 General court-martial jurisdiction was at a head-quarters at Brisbane, Australia, as remote and impersonal asan Olympian god. There was no judge advocate at Moresbymost of the time, though a couple appeared on brief TDYs.My rater was the local adjutant general.

Administration was streamlined, and the Army “indorse-ment” system was the key to correspondence. But with fewtypewriters, no photocopiers, and a shortage of typing andcarbon papers, only the essentials were committed to type.During most of the period I had one enlisted assistant, a pa-tient, diligent, long-suffering two- (later three-) striper namedCichon (pronounced Shee-on) who did all of the administra-tion which I didn’t and acted as court reporter in all of mygeneral courts-martial. His problem: On his best day his short-hand wasn’t much over 55 wpm; his typing, 35 wpm. Theoffice typewriter was a Royal portable, rugged, dependable,but infuriating.3 From this modest device emanated the recordswhich determined the fate, even the life or death, of manydozens of soldiers.

The offenses we tried were a mixed bag: disobedience anddisrespect; larceny; disorderly conduct; assault and related

Colonel Myron L. Birnbaum was long retired from active duty by the time I met him in early 1980. Of course, I had heard of himbecause—as a civilian—he was the Special Assistant to the Director of the Judiciary for Clemency and Rehabilitation. In the

early 1970’s, many of my clients, many of the accused I prosecuted, and many of those I sentenced as a special court-martialjudge1 wound up going through the 3320th Retraining Group, at Lowry AFB, Colorado.2 But, as I say, I never met this memorablecharacter until I was assigned to the Air Force Court of Military Review as an appellate judge.

As a Captain, Mr. Birnbaum had been stationed in New Guinea during WW II. I know this—not because we ever discussed it—but because a REPORTER article3 detailed the early military career of Mr. Birnbaum. One of the accompanying photos showed himin tropical environs wearing a khaki uniform with a pith helmet. That uniform, later modified slightly and designated Air ForceShade “1505,” was worn by me on the last authorized day before its phase-out in 1978, when I was serving as a trial judge at ClarkAir Base, Republic of the Philippines. The common uniform, reminiscent of colonial times, was a tenuous link, but I felt a kindredexperience—serving in hot humid parts of the Pacific—even though I had the advantages of only a cold war, and air-conditioning.

Mr. Birnbaum made reference to his prior military experience only when he needed to give a concrete example of some arcaneconcept he was expounding upon. Some of those anecdotes were preserved in footnotes; other are lost except to the extent thelearned lesson was assimilated and embraced in a published opinion. Most of the basic questions I had for “Col. B”4 were not

Me and Mr. B

COLONEL J . JEREMIAH MAHONEY

Colonel Mahoney (A.B., Notre Dame; J.D., Syracuse University) is the Chief Circuit Military Judge, Central Circuit, USAFTrial Judiciary, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas. He is member of the Bars of the states of Illinois, New York, and California.


ones of law, but were along the lines of why UCMJ proce-dures evolved the way they did. Today, of course, I under-stand that those procedures evolved because that’s the waywe always did it—or the way the Army did it—or the Britsbefore them. But then, I was of a mind to find out why, and Mr.Birnbaum was the available repository of Departmental His-tory.

I was first referred to “Mr. B” by Colonel Bill Early, who wasthe Chief Judge of the Court of Review until his retirement in1981.5 Because of statutory restrictions6 Colonel Early wasnot my supervisor, but he was the first colonel with whom Ihad a routine working relationship, and he was one of themost thoughtful, tactful, and intellectual Judge Advocates Ihad encountered up to that early7 point in my career. He wasof a disposition to let fellow judges run a jurisprudential inspi-ration into the ground before gently easing them back to real-ity.8 Part of that “running to ground” was often an historicalconsultation with “Mr. B.”

Mr. Birnbaum was never a mentor in the sense that the wordis used today, but he always found time for me—and count-less others—who sought out the historical underpinnings ofour system of military justice. Almost any question prompteda stab into the numerous and slightly-overlapping piles ofpapers on his overcrowded desk. The office itself was smalland unimpressive, with few mementos on the wall. Each forayinto the stack resulted in a colorful story, possibly embel-lished slightly to hold the interest of the listener, or to empha-size the insight and wisdom of the teller. Of course, not everyventure into the stack retrieved the precise story Mr. Birnbaumhad in mind to illustrate his point. But all of the stories weretoo good to be brushed aside without at least a brief synop-sis, so—not infrequently—three or more sagas played outbefore the originally sought nugget was found and explicated.9

“Mr. B” retired in the grade of colonel in 1971, and immedi-ately began civilian employment as the Special Assistant for

Clemency and Rehabilitation Matters.10 He was fond of re-counting that he actually lost money as a result of his civilianjob, since his military retirement was reduced by the amountof his civilian pay, on top of which he had to pay commutingand parking expenses. In that regard, he was the driver of acarpool, and at least weekly the exiles at Buzzard Point11 wereentertained by stories—ranging from humorous to stark ter-ror—emanating from members of “Mr. B’s” carpool. Therewere benign foibles, bad radio stations played too loudly,12

near misses, and an occasional fender bender. In the lattercategory, it was hard to tell simply by looking at “Mr. B’s”1968 Ford station wagon, because it was the obvious victim ofcountless rough encounters, and only the accidental scrap-ing off of road dust—or the traumatic exposure of unrustedmetal—would confirm a new insult. One of our clerks on theCourt of Review, Mrs. Elva Smith, sometimes took hours tosettle down from the horrors of the morning commute, andoften spoke wistfully of the day she could retire or find an-other carpool.

In addition to his vast knowledge and colorful personality,“Mr. B” was well known as the Department’s Poet Laureate. Aretirement or farewell luncheon at Buzzard Point was hardlycomplete without presentation of a thoughtfully researchedand well-tuned piece of poetry. Typically, “Mr. B” read thepoem himself, and presented the framed version to the recipi-ent. I felt more honor in that personalized tribute than anyother memento I was presented upon my reassignment fromthe Court of Review. It hangs on my office wall to this day, stillprompting impertinent questions from young judge advo-cates.13

1 From the inception of the 1968 UCMJ as included in theMCM, 1969 (revised), there were part-time special court-mar-tial judges throughout the Air Force until the fall of 1972 whenfull-time special court-martial military judges were assigned toeach of the eight world-wide judicial circuits. Like many cap-tains in those days, I was appointed a part-time judge afteraccumulating about 25 cases by the middle of my second yearof active duty. I served as such until I was appointed as a fulltime special court judge two years later, in the Fall of 1973.2 The 3320th was established at Amarillo AFB, Texas in 1951,and moved to Lowry AFB, Colorado in 1967. It was redesig-nated as the 3320th Corrections and Rehabilitation Group in1976, and downsized to a squadron the following year. It wasdeactivated with the closure of Lowry AFB in 1993, and itsfunction is now performed by the Return-to-Duty Program atthe Charleston Naval Brig.3 THE REPORTER, Fall 1983 No. 1, at 8-9. After graduating fromStanford Law School and practicing for a year, Lt. Birnbaumfound himself on a troopship in mid-Pacific on 7 December1941. He arrived at his first duty station, Port Moresby, NewGuinea, after unplanned stops at Java and several Australiancities, occasioned by the outbreak of World War II. By thetime he arrived, his billet as an artillery officer had alreadybeen filled, so he seized the opportunity to make himself avail-able to the nearest judge advocate, and wound up serving thenext 14 months as a trial judge advocate.

�those procedures evolvedbecause that�s the way we alwaysdid it�

Capt J. JeremiahMahoney in�Shade 1505� atClark AB,P h i l i p p i n e s ,1976.

Photo courtesy of C

olonel J. Jeremiah M

ahoney


4 Colonel Birnbaum was universally referred to and addressedas “Mr. B,” or “Col B.” Both were terms of respect.5 Colonel William N. Early is now the Central Legal Staff Di-rector for the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.6 Title 10 U.S.C. 866(g), Article 66(g), UCMJ.7 No pun intended. I was a major at the time. Coincidentally,however, it was not uncommon for more senior judge advo-cates to refer to the chief judge as the “late” Bill Early.8 On a more practical note, it was Colonel Early, in collabora-tion with Mr. Birnbaum, who had the foresight to establish thestandardized 2½ inch thickness limit for each volume in a recordof trial.9 It was my casual observation, confirmed by others, that“Mr. B” never quite got any piece of paper back in its previousposition, although it almost always went back in the same pile.Once, when another judge wanted to see the same sourcedocument “Mr. B” had shown to me three days earlier, herelated that “Mr. B” went directly to its new location, withouthesitation.10 While still serving in that capacity, Colonel Birnbaum passedaway in 1984.11 “Buzzard Point” was the name of the geographic location inthe southwestern part of the District of Columbia, on thenorthern shore of the Anacostia River, directly across fromthe Naval Station Anacostia, which is east of—and contigu-

ous to—Bolling Air Force Base. The location—which stillappears on most maps—was aptly named because that “point”on the river was used by the cavalry at nearby Fort McNair asthe designated dumping ground for dead horses. The build-ing in which most of the JAG department was located was aGSA leased building that formerly housed the local FBI unit.The FBI had evacuated most of its people because the neigh-borhood was too rough, desolate, and unpleasant. Shortlythereafter, Air Force JAG was kicked out of the Forrestal Build-ing (with its scenic view of the Mall, near the SmithsonianInstitute) to accommodate Dr. Schlesinger, and the newly cre-ated Department of Energy. When the JAG offices moved toBuzzard Point, the only remaining FBI function was the localhigh-security lockup, maintained on the top floor. So it wasthat we were able to look out our windows and witness thecommotion and media frenzy accompanying the delivery ofJohn W. Hinckley, Jr., on 30 March 1981, for booking and ar-raignment.12 This may have been due to the confluence of Mr. B’s dimin-ished hearing and his background as a jazz musician (saxo-phone was the rumored instrument) in the late 30’s and early40’s, while at Stanford University.13 The attached “quincunx of limericks” is Mr. Birnbaum’sonly reported poetic dalliance beyond iambic pentameter.

Courtesy of C

olonel J. Jeremiah M

ahoney


I

until they reached the pay officer, to whom they would reportand salute. The pay officer, normally the squadron commander,wore a sidearm. He would call out the man’s name and theamount of pay due him. A man seated beside the pay officercounted out the cash. Standing near the end of the pay linewere a few men who wanted to make sure they collected whatwas owed them by reason of loans or poker debts.

There was a consolidated mess hall at Kirtland AFB. Forbreakfast, you could choose eggs or cold cereal, but lunchesand evening meals featured a single menu. One man guardedthe milk supply at all times, passing out a half-pint carton perman. Seconds were rare.

For recreation, there was a gym, swimming pool and theusual sports. There was also a live band every Saturday nightat the nicely renovated NCO Club. The Service Club directorbrought a busload of local young women out to the base for adance once or twice a week.

My first duty assignment was in the single-story, H-shaped headquarters building, in front of which stood a P-39Bell Air Cobra fighter plane on static display. My boss wasthe Base Sergeant Major, Master Sergeant Thomas (mastersergeant was then the highest enlisted rank). He was, as heshould be, all business. He set up a desk for me in an entrywayadjoining the office of Captain Noland, the Adjutant, leadingto the office of the base commander, Colonel Harold A. Gunn.Colonel Gunn had no secretary; the Sergeant Major and Ad-jutant performed that function. It was largely a man’s AirForce back then. My main duty was to type a stencil of theDaily Bulletin, which contained such official information asthe duty roster for Officer of the Day, as well as unofficialmatters. This was a choice job for anyone, let alone a neo-phyte. Still, after several weeks I asked for and was permittedto transfer to the Base Legal Office, where I hoped to put myshorthand to greater use.

Into The Legal WorldThe Legal Office was located in one corner of a second H-

shaped building, directly behind Base HQ. That building wasshared by the Base Inspector General, Provost Marshal(today’s Security Forces chief), and a “crypto” office. TheLegal Officer was Major Talmadge D. Cooper, a nonlawyer

From Enlisted Court Reporter at Kirtland AFB Legal Office in 1949to Retirement as a Judge Advocate in 1973

Fascinating JourneyLIEUTENANT COLONEL LARRY I . ASHLOCK, RETIRED

Lieutenant Colonel Ashlock (LL.B., University of Iowa; S.J.D.,George Washington University) retired from service as anAir Force judge advocate on 31 July 1973.

It was a different era then. In early May 1949, I

arrived at the train station in downtown Albuquer-que, New Mexico, fresh from completing the 26-weekstenographic course at Fort Francis E. Warren (nowFrancis E. Warren AFB), Cheyenne, Wyoming,eager to put that training to use at my first duty sta-tion, Kirtland AFB. I was a 17-year-old Private First

Class. I telephoned the base of my arrival, and in due time waspicked up by a sergeant in a jeep. The buildings at Kirtlandwere white, temporary wooden structures of World War IIvintage. The parade ground occupied a prominent location.Except for collar or lapel insignia and the shoulder patch, theAir Force uniform was identical to the Army’s: khaki in warmweather, olive drab in cold. It was, as they said, a “brownshoe” Air Force. Officers wore a distinctive, higher qualityuniform, generally of gabardine. There were no “WAFs”(Women Air Force) and relatively few civilian employees.

The barracks were two-story, open-bay types with unfin-ished, uninsulated interiors and, of course, were hot in sum-mer and cold in winter. They contained two or three roomsupstairs for the highest ranking NCOs. The rest of the menhad designated space in the open bay, a GI cot, and a GIfootlocker. The HQ Squadron commander and first sergeantconducted frequent stand-by inspections on Saturday morn-ings. All troops who lived in the barracks (some were marriedand lived elsewhere) stood at attention beside their bunk, at-tired in a fresh Class “A” uniform and spit-shined shoes. Be-sides personal appearance and grooming, the inspectorschecked the opened footlockers and the manner in which cotswere made up for compliance with the rules.

Sometimes the stand-by inspections were followed by aparade, although parades gradually became less frequent. But,KP and bay orderly duties never abated. I rejoiced when, inJuly 1951, I became a staff sergeant and hence was no longersubject to those duties.

Paydays were monthly and, at least for some time, re-quired that enlisted men stand at parade rest in the pay line


L

To the best of my knowledge, there were never any racial orethnic problems.

It was probably in 1950 that the Legal Office changed insize and composition. Lieutenant Colonel Thatcher Harwood,a dignified, reserved lawyer, and all business succeeded Ma-jor Cooper. He was joined by several other military lawyers,most of whom were also pilots, and two civilian court report-ers. Before long, the office moved to a nearby, separate, one-story building of our own. Conditions remained crowded —even more so that before. Only two officers had a privateoffice: Colonel Harwood, of course, and Major Shapiro, whowas the only officer who gave what little legal assistance wasprovided. Few people sought legal assistance, possibly be-cause it was not then offered to dependents. That might ex-plain why I do not recall ever seeing any civilians in the Major’soffice.

Despite the conditions, the work atmosphere was alwaysbusinesslike. There was very little chitchat. Unlike my later

experiences elsewhere, there were nooffice parties or other mixed gather-ings. Everyone was considerate andcourteous. This extended both ways.Officers and senior NCOs always ad-dressed subordinates by rank or titleand surname. This was typical of of-ficer-NCO-enlisted-civilian- relation-ships that then existed elsewhere onthe base. It worked well.

In 1950, I began taking collegecourses off base. Unlike today, few,if any, such courses were offered onbase. However, one of the best fea-tures of the Air Force was that it did

encourage educational self-improvement, and it paid for all ormost of the expenses.

Legal WorkI believe Colonel Gunn had authority, as Base and Wing

Commander, to convene only special courts-martial. Mosttrials were by special court, which had no law member or lawofficer. They were usually prosecuted and defended by laycounsel, but occasionally Captain Murphy, a military lawyer,and perhaps other attorneys from our office, defended ac-cused airmen. Even a local civilian attorney, RichardKrannawitter (called “Diamond Dick” for his bejeweled tiepinand ring), defended a case or two.

More than one case involved unlawful cohabitation. Al-though these cases also commonly involved a charge of falselyclaiming a dependent’s allowance, prosecuting unlawful co-habitation might seem remarkable by today’s standards. Therewere two or three cases involving possession of marijuana;that was the first I had ever heard of the drug. Each defendantreceived a heavy sentence, possibly the maximum the courtcould adjudge.

One case to which I was assigned must have been a gen-eral court-martial because the accused was a captain chargedwith writing bad checks. The case must have been before the

Standing near the end ofthe pay line were a fewmen who wanted tomake sure theycollected what wasowed them by reason ofloans or poker debts.

pilot. A rather dashing figure, he was sometimes accompa-nied by his beautiful Irish Setter as he strode into or out of hisoffice, which occupied most of one of our two rooms. Theoffice NCOIC, Master Sergeant Wilburn G. Moore, had servedas a major in the China-Burma-India Theater of operations.One of his main duties was Claims. Under him was then-StaffSergeant Ray D. Paar, a self-effacing, highly able older gentle-man who taught me the court-reporting ropes via “OJT.” Hewore pilot’s wings he had earned during the First World War.I respected both of these fine NCOs with whom I worked overthe next three and one-half years. Finally, there was Liz—shewas a clerk, and me.

The stark courtroom adjoined our cramped office. Thecourt members’ bench covered most of the far wall, acrossone end of the “H.” In front of the bench stood counsel tablesand a small desk for the court reporter. Near the entrance wasa low railing with a swinging gate. To the best of my recollec-tion, there was no seating for spectators, nor do I recall everhaving seen the flag displayed.

The few trials at that time wereusually special courts-martial. Inaddition to courts-martial, adminis-trative board hearings were held inthe courtroom to determine whetherenlisted men should be “kicked out”for ineptitude or repeated miscon-duct. Sergeant Paar recorded thecourt and board proceedings inshorthand, then transcribed hisnotes in preparing the record. I satin the courtroom with him, observ-ing and recording as much as Icould.

While I was at Kirtland AFB, stenotype machines existed,but none of our reporters used anything but shorthand. Weheard talk of steno-masks being tried out at some other loca-tions. I bought and was learning to use a stenotype machineby the time I left Kirtland.

Sometime during that first year, a new, blue-coveredManual for Courts-Martial, U.S. Air Forces, 1949, was pub-lished, replacing the 1928 manual.

Nineteen-fifty was an eventful year. On June 25, the Ko-rean War began, and all enlisted men were “frozen” in theservice for one year, including men whose enlistments expiredduring that time. Also, Congress enacted the Uniform Codeof Military Justice (it was far closer to the Articles of Warapplicable to the Army than to the Articles for the Govern-ment of the Navy). In the same year, the Air Force adopted theblue uniform, replacing an interim hybrid that consisted ofkhakis adorned with a blue cap, tie, belt, winged star chev-rons, and black shoes.

Racial integration came to Kirtland AFB during 1950, butit seemed to be a nonevent. During basic training at LacklandAFB in the summer of 1948, I had seen tarpaper-covered bar-racks that housed black airmen in a separate area of the base.I never saw anything of the kind at Kirtland AFB. Actually,there were few minority servicemen on the base to integrate.


B

It was in OCS at Lackland AFB that I first saw WAFs. Ifelt sorry for them because they evidently had to undergo thesame arduous program as we men, while wearing the unbe-coming “Li’l Abner” brogans that were part of their uniform.It was also in OCS that I first encountered a television set in adayroom, but we had very little time to enjoy it.

I was proud to be able to help my classmates when thesubject of Military Justice was taught. Near the end of thatcourse, a mock trial was conducted in a large auditorium forthe benefit of the Officer Candidates, and I was asked to serveas law officer. It was the only time I wore a colonel’s eagles!

After OCS and further training, I served for three years asan intelligence officer, first with RB-36s at Ramey AFB, PuertoRico, then with B-47s at Hunter AFB, Savannah, Georgia. Bycontinuing off-duty studies, I accumulated the three years ofcollege then required for admission to the Iowa Law School inmy hometown, Iowa City. I left the Air Force, intending andhoping to return as a judge advocate.

Becoming A Judge AdvocateWith the help of my wife, who worked as a registered

nurse, and the GI Bill, I was financially able to complete lawschool. After graduation and upon the recommendation of aprofessor, I had the opportunity to serve for a year as a lawclerk for the honorable Henry N. Graven, a Federal DistrictJudge. Part way through the year, having been active in theAir Force Reserve, I was promoted to captain and applied forrecall to active duty. Orders were slow in coming, and my yearended. Concerned, I picked up the telephone in the smalltown where Judge Graven lived and had an office, and askedthe operator to “Get me the Pentagon!” She replied, “Where’sthat?”

Orders came, assigning me to a large training commandbase. During the second year there, I became deeply troubledby what to me was clearly improper command influence affect-ing a sergeant. I tendered my resignation, but it was rejectedbecause construction of the Berlin Wall had begun in 1961and tensions with the Soviets were high. Fortunately, myboss was good enough to transfer me to another base, whereanother senior judge advocate asked if I was interested in aregular commission; I was.

During my “Pentagon tour” at Air Force HQ in 1972, Iearned a doctorate (S.J.D.) from the George Washington Uni-versity Law Center. My dissertation, entitled “The MilitaryTrial Judge,” encompassed changes made by the Military Jus-tice Act of 1968 and earlier laws. My last duty assignmentwas as Deputy Staff Judge Advocate, Fifth Air Force, in theoutskirts of Tokyo.

In July 1973, I retired in order to pursue the private prac-tice of law. I will forever be indebted to the fine militarylawyers at Kirtland AFB for the inspiration that theyprovided.

B

UCMJ became effective, because the military “judge” neversat apart from the court members while I was at Kirtland AFB,so far as I recall (however, I was not the only court reporter.) Ahandwriting expert gave precise and detailed explanations forhis conclusion that the accused’s handwriting was on thechecks, and the captain was convicted.

Colonel Harwood took me and perhaps one of his militarylawyers on TDY to Fort Hood at Killeen, Texas, for the trial ofa serviceman who had stolen a box of hand grenades from astorage “igloo” there. Colonel Harwood must have served aslaw member or law officer. Not surprisingly, I felt uneasy whenthe prosecutor put the grenades on my reporter’s desk to bemarked for identification!

Besides general and special courts-martial, there weresummary courts-martial, conducted by one officer, usually offield grade and often a unit commander. Inasmuch as themaximum sentence was relatively minor (30 days of confine-ment, no punitive discharge), the only record made of the casewas the charge sheet. Before the UCMJ took effect, unit com-manders imposed nonjudicial punishment under Article of War104, later replaced by Article 15.

The Legal Office also conducted or advised on such var-ied matters as Line of Duty investigations and Flying Evalua-tion Boards.

In the Legal Office, I was privileged to work with lawyer-pilots, men of integrity and achievement – and some mischief.Colonel Harwood had a big, shiny 1949 Buick sedan in whichhe took pride. One day, as he and some of the other officerswent out to his parked car to drive to lunch, there was a loudbang. I hurried to the window and looked out, where I sawsmoke billowing from under the Buick’s hood and some of theofficers nearly doubled over with laughter. It seems that Ma-jor Boland, one of the lawyer-pilots, had rigged up a smokebomb.

I saw several aircraft while at Kirtland, although somemay not have been based there. These aircraft included the F-80, the Air Force’s first operational jet, if my understanding iscorrect; the old, reliable C-47 “Gooney Bird” workhorse; and asmall, twin-engine plane whose tail section resembled a B-24Liberator’s. I once accompanied my Squadron Commander,First Lieutenant Harris, when he piloted one of these planeson a brief trip. I do not recall the mission, but it demonstratedthe readiness of a military reporter to go on short notice.

Becoming An OfficerThe Air Force, understandably, needed pilots during the

Korean War. In 1952, it was rumored that lawyer-pilots wouldbe required to choose which career path they would follow.Sometime during that year, having by then completed abouttwo and one-half years of college (including a year’s credit formilitary experience), I took the qualifying tests for pilot train-ing, then given at Lowry AFB, followed by a physical. Themedical officer tested and retested my vision before conclud-ing it did not meet the uncorrected 20/20 vision requirement.It was a big disappointment, but I promptly applied for OfficerCandidate School (OCS), took the tests, and was acceptedinto the next class, which began in early January of 1953.


Any reflection on the firstfifty years of the Air ForceJudge Advocate General’s(JAG) Department would

not be complete without considerationof its Reserve counterpart. The two de-partments have coexisted almost fromthe very beginning, and today enjoy asymbiotic relationship in which neithercould function without the other. Whileit is now difficult to imagine the activeand reserve sides not working together,this affiliation has only developed overthe last twenty years. Before then, re-servists were more like the practicesquad on a college football team. Theywere part of the outfit, but there was noplace on the bench to seat them. Thisarticle will briefly explore how the rela-tionship began, and the steps that weretaken to achieve the current interdepen-dence.1

Because history is best understoodwhen seen through the eyes of the par-ticipants, three men who experiencedthe initial fifty years were asked to sharetheir memories. While no one personcan tell the entire story, collectively

PARTNERSAT LAST

A brief retrospection onthe Air Force Judge Advocate Reserve

MAJOR MICHAEL E. GUILLORY

Major Guillory (B.A., Louisiana StateUniversity, J.D., Tulane University) isa Category B reservist assigned as aninstructor to The Air Force JudgeAdvocate General School, Maxwell AirForce Base, Alabama. He is a memberof the Florida State Bar and resides inTampa. He apologizes for thecontinuing football metaphor, but thepaper was completed on Super BowlSunday, and the pre-game hype provedcontagious.

these now retired reservists provide achronicle as replete as any wartime ar-senal. Before we meet our protagonists,however, some background informationis in order.

A Slow BeginningThe rough start was not due to a lack

of lofty aspirations or ambitious goals.As early as 1946, the Army Air Forcesaw the need to train organized reserveunits and individual reservists.2 Theidea was to maintain a balanced forceof active duty, reserve units, and indi-viduals. Individual reservists were tobe “trained, commissioned, and enlistedpersonnel with military experience,available for assignments, to augmentunits of the Regular Army Air Forces,Air Units of the National Guard, and theAir Reserve.”3 The Air Reserve plancalled for training “to develop andqualify individuals for their contem-plated duties in the event of an emer-gency” and to “discover, develop, andqualify officers with special abilities toassume technical, staff, or command

responsibilities.” As the plan indicates,the emphasis was on maintaining readi-ness for mobilization, not assisting withdaily mission requirements.

Colonel Michael B. Jennison,USAFR, indicates in his book, The Tues-day Knight Group. Air Force ReserveJudge Advocate Training4, that theArmy Air Force planners wanted cen-tralized management for the reserveforces. To this end they assigned re-sponsibility for reserve training to theAir Defense Command, under Lieuten-ant General George E. Stratemeyer. Gen-eral Stratemeyer’s first individual mobi-


lization assignee effort was to assignreservists to positions at the headquar-ters and to its six Numbered Air Forcesacross the country. As the quote be-low indicates, he wanted them to beavailable and fully familiar with theirimmediate duties in case of mobilization:

To the air reservist who isqualified and in a position todevote slightly more time tothe program than the aver-age air reservist, we are of-fering a special type of train-ing. This is known as themobilization assignment. Itconsists of an assignment toa regular air force operationunit of an air force headquar-ters echelon or higher, as anunderstudy of a full-timeregular Air Force officer orenlisted man in a standardposition in the unit’s organi-zation. In this position, theindividual contributes part-time duty whenever he findsit convenient. He also iscalled for two weeks’ tour ofactive duty, to be served inthe headquarters to whichhe is assigned, if he so de-sires. This frequent andclose working with a specificgroup makes these air reserv-ists most valuable. Shouldan emergency occur, wewould be able to expand ourstaffs immediately with theaddition of trained person-nel already cognizant of ourgeneral operating proce-dures. 5

After the Air Force became a sepa-rate service, Air Defense Command is-sued a regulation governing mobiliza-tion assignments. Air Force Regulation(AFR) 35–26 defined a mobilization as-signment as “the assignment of an in-dividual reservist to the position whichhe will fill in the event of a national emer-gency.” 6 A year later, General Hoyt S.Vandenburg, the Air Force Chief ofStaff, directed all the major commandsto take up reserve training responsibili-ties and the Continental Air Command

Theroughstart wasnot dueto a lackof loftyaspira-tions orambitiousgoals.

(CONAC) was established. CONAC,with General Stratemeyer as its first com-mander, took over Air DefenseCommand’s responsibilities for air de-fense of the United States, tactical sup-port of the ground forces, and reserveand Air National Guard training.

As far as judge advocates were con-cerned, the first Air Force TJAG, MajorGeneral Reginald Harmon, “had somefirm views about what (his) reservistsought to do with their time. He wasdetermined that (they) would get thetraining they needed to be useful uponmobilization.” 7 When General Harmonorganized The Judge AdvocateGeneral’s Department Reserve in 1949,8 he told Colonel Tom King, his firstsenior reserve counterpart, “I want aprogram that is useful in wartime or noprogram. I don’t want to have a train-ing program in name only. Train themfor the jobs they’ll have to take on ac-tive duty. We were an Army in between-the-wars doldrums, with no ambition tomake a useful program. Idleness pro-motes idleness. I would have a usefulprogram or no program.” 9

The initial mission of The Judge Ad-vocate General’s Department Reservemirrored that of the Air Force Reserveas a whole. AFR 45-25, paragraph 3stated that the role was “to furnish, inthe event of an emergency, qualified AirForce judge advocate officers trainedin time of peace in order to meet themobilization requirements of the Depart-ment of the Air Force.”

To facilitate all reserve training, theAir Force revised and extended its re-serve-training operation in what becameknown as the Fiscal Year 1950 ReserveProgram. In addition to existing unit,mobilization assignment, and corre-spondence course projects, the FiscalYear 1950 program established the Vol-unteer Air Reserve Training (VART).The VART was the first major effort totrain large numbers of individual reserv-ists who were not considered essentialfor immediate mobilization. The pro-gram consisted of Air Reserve groups,squadrons, and flights managed by thereservists themselves, with active dutyliaison personnel. 10 The VART unitstrained by listening to lectures on theirAir Force specialties, along with semi-


nars, field trips, and other trainingcourses available in the area.

With the regulations and training pro-grams then in place, early Air Force re-servists could not be faulted for expect-ing to receive significant attention fromtheir active duty brethren. However, asthe recollections of two men who expe-rienced the times reveal, the true pic-ture was far different.

When hostilities ceased at the endof the Second World War, our first re-servist, Robert M. Martin of Dallas,Texas, joined thousands of his fellowservicemen in returning to civilian lifeand using the GI bill to attend college.Martin, who had been a cryptographerwith the Army Signal Corps, attendedthe University of Texas Law School andgraduated in 1947. In 1950, he was re-cruited into the JAG Reserve along withthirty other former military-members-turned-lawyer by one of Major GeneralReginald C. Harmon’s emissaries. Mar-tin became a First Lieutenant and wasassigned to the 9170th VART in Dallasas a mobilization augmentee (MA).

While Martin and his fellow MAsexpected to train for possible mobiliza-tion, they instead spent the next eightyears attending classes on nonmilitarysubjects at what they affectionately re-ferred to as the “Little Red SchoolHouse.” 11 These evening-a-monthsessions were for non-pay/points-only.In fairness to the Air Force, it should benoted that CONAC did rent office spacein Dallas and provided specialized legalcourses for the reserve judge advo-cates. But beyond the CONAC coursesand the lectures — and officially beingcalled Category B reservists in 1956 —the 9170th members’ only other involve-ment with the Air Force came every fiveor six years when a promotion order ar-rived in the mail.

Lieutenant Martin did attend a lun-cheon with General Harmon on one oc-casion, however. The brash lieutenantasked TJAG why the Department wasnot interested in having more WWIIveterans on active duty. GeneralHarmon replied that they were all abunch of ex-pilots who had gone to lawschool and were no better informedabout military law than recent gradu-ates, so he would just as soon get his

judge advocates right out of school. 12

Apparently the General thought thatyounger lawyers would be more ame-nable to training.

A significant change did occur inCaptain Martin’s reserve life in 1960when the Air Force removed reservetraining responsibility from CONACand placed it under the major com-mands. Category B reservists also be-gan to receive pay for participation atthis time. He was assigned to Head-quarters Air Defense Command in Colo-rado Springs13 for his two week annualtours and, in consideration of his domi-cile, allowed to perform his inactive dutytraining sessions (IDTs) at the 9027th

Flying Training Squadron at Perrin AFB,Sherman, Texas. By working for themajor commands, MAs were now ableto assist the active duty and performlegal work. Despite this improvement,Captain Martin and his fellow reserv-ists were still not permitted to say thatthey helped the mission of the Air Force.The official policy remained that theywere training for mobilization — a tenetthat nearly would become reality in Oc-tober of 1962 with the Cuban missile cri-sis.

As the United States and the SovietUnion edged toward war, recently pro-moted Major Martin received a smallcard in the mail advising him to prepareto mobilize. Along with the card cameinstructions to have his bags packedand to listen to the radio for the activa-tion signal. Despite his wife’s reluc-tance, Major Martin tuned in. Fortu-nately, the crisis abated and his mobili-zation orders never came.

Major Martin would spend the nextten years performing his monthly IDTsin Texas and his annual tours in Colo-rado. In 1965, the Air Reserve RecordsCenter in Denver, which had been es-tablished in 1953 to house all reserverecords, became the Air Reserve Per-sonnel Center (ARPC). This signaledthe first step toward the consolidationof reserve matters that continues today.Because everyday management of thereservists was still handled by the ma-jor commands and Air Reserve regions,MAs such as Martin detected no dif-ferences. They did their tours and werepromoted every five or six years. The

I want aprogramthat isuseful inwartimeor noprogram.


reer as a judge advocate would ulti-mately prove more successful.

Even though Lieutenant Miller’s onlyinvolvement with active duty judge ad-vocates was the occasional ORI, hisskills as the small arms range managerwere apparently recognized. In thecourse of six years he was promoted toCaptain, and then Major. By 1962, Ma-jor Miller had three groups and six at-torneys working for him. In October ofthat year, however, the Cuban missilecrisis would force him to give up com-mand of the range, at least for a fewmonths.

Prior to the activation of the 89th dur-ing the crisis, the unit had been more ofa country club for WWII veterans thana fighting force. The pilots were flyingoutdated aircraft and their missions con-sisted primarily of trips to the Caribbean.But at least they could fly. As a judgeadvocate, Major Miller had no supportfrom the active side by way of books,instructions, or training. This changedwhen the unit was activated for the mis-sile crisis. Major Miller and his staff ofattorneys began running dischargeboards and performing legal functions;tasks that caught the attention of theactive duty judge advocates. After themissiles were removed from Cuba, Ma-jor Miller was summoned to Washing-ton. He suspected that the reason hehad been called to the capitol was thatthe active duty attorneys were surprisedto learn that he had existed. 14

While in Washington, Major Millercomplained to The Judge AdvocateGeneral, Albert Kuhlfeld, and anyoneelse who would listen, about the lack ofsupport. But the issue that concernedthe active duty side the most was whowas in charge of the unit judge advo-cates — the unit commander or TJAG.Nothing was resolved, and after a weekMajor Miller returned to Massachu-setts. For the next ten years little wouldchange in the unit world. In 1968,CONAC was renamed Headquarters AirForce Reserve (AFRES) and made re-sponsible for the Category A reserveoperational units. But this had no realimpact on Major Miller. As with MajorMartin, Miller’s life would not be trans-formed until the arrival of the Total Forceconcept during the following decade.

Total ForceWith the post-Vietnam drawdown and

the elimination of the draft, the Depart-ment of Defense was searching for away to maintain mission readiness. Theanswer was the Total Force concept,which envisioned the integration of theactive and reserve components in com-bat operations, training, and all otherroutine missions. From the beginning,the idea meant different things to dif-ferent people. For Martin it was belatedrecognition of what MAs were alreadydoing. Miller saw the change as elevat-ing the units from being unwanted step-children to becoming an integral part ofthe mission.

By 1973 Major General Harold R.Vague had become TJAG. Shortly af-terwards, he assigned then-ColonelMartin as the MA to the AssistantJudge Advocate General. This got Mar-tin promoted to Brigadier General. Gen-eral Vague told his new general that heshould devote his energy to ensuringthat all Reserve JAGs were ready to bemobilized. At the same time, Miller, whowas now a colonel and whose wife hadrecently died, agreed to go on activeduty as the Reserve Advisor to TJAG.Before then active duty JAGs workingin career management had handled thereserve position as an additional duty.

real metamorphosis would not beginuntil the activation of the 9005th Air Re-serve Squadron on 1 July 1972.

When Major General James Cheneybecame TJAG in 1969 he did not like theinconsistent training within the Re-serve. To remedy this problem, he cre-ated the 9005th at ARPC, and all Cat-egory B MAs were reassigned from themajor commands to the new squadron.In addition to centralizing the manage-ment, this also eliminated a systemwhere promotions and careers de-pended on the staffing levels at the as-signed command. With the 9005th inplace, the Reserve Department wasready for the sweeping changes thatwould come with the Total Force con-cept. But before we venture any far-ther, we must first visit with our Cat-egory A reservist, Lawrence Miller, todiscover what had been occurring in theunit world.

Lawrence Miller, of Errol, New Hamp-shire, had been a radio operator/gun-ner on B-17s during the Second WorldWar. Afterwards, he went to SyracuseUniversity and then Boston Universityfor law school. In 1950, as the Koreanconflict kicked off, then-Staff SergeantMiller was recalled to return to flying.Because he was in law school, a boardrecommended that he be allowed tocomplete his education provided thathe join an active reserve unit. Millercompleted his studies and in 1954 at-tended JASOC class 54-B at MaxwellAFB. After graduation, he joined the89th fighter/bomber wing, a reserve unitthat had been created at Hanscom AFBafter the original unit had mobilized forcombat. He received his commissionand became a first lieutenant and theunit judge advocate.

Upon his arrival at the unit, Lieuten-ant Miller quickly learned that the legalwork would not be very taxing. Heed-ing General Harmon’s warning aboutidleness, Miller began to spend hisweekends and two-week annual toursmanaging the unit’s small arms trainingprogram. While he may not have beenhoning his military legal skills, he at leastput the time to good use. He wouldeventually become a competitiveshooter and try out for the U.S. Olym-pic team. In the end, however, his ca-


The last of these was Lieutenant Colo-nel Robert Norris, who in ColonelMiller’s opinion was, glad to pass onthe job.15

Now working together, BrigadierGeneral Martin and Colonel Miller rec-ognized the need to improve reservetraining if reservists were going to playa larger role in defense operations. Gen-eral Martin knew that at the base of-fices most MAs were exclusively doinglegal assistance. For his part, ColonelMiller had seen too many Category AJAGs go to Vietnam unprepared whentheir units were recalled. In responseto their concerns, General Vague issuedAFR 45-2 (Training of Reserve of theAir Force Judge Advocates) in May of1975. The regulation acknowledged thatlegal assistance was important, but alsoinstructed reservists to train to augmentthe active duty forces by learning mili-tary justice and civil law. It further cre-ated the refresher course at the JAGSchool that is now called the ReserveForces Judge Advocate Course, andrequired that all reservists attend everyfive years.

In 1975 Brigadier General Martin be-came the MA to TJAG and receivedanother star. While the promotion wasa milestone for General Martin, the truesignificance was the assignment. Priorto this, the preceding MAs had comefrom the Headquarters Group in Wash-ington D.C., familiarly known as theTuesday Knights because they per-formed their training on Tuesday eve-nings. General Martin’s selection senta message to the Reserve world that ev-eryone was a valuable player, no matterhis or her geographical location.

Still believing that more frequenttraining was needed, Major GeneralMartin and Colonel Miller would col-laborate once again. In 1978 they cre-ated the Annual Survey of the Law.Under the format that they devised,fourteen legal subjects were discussedat weekend courses. To make traveleasier, five geographically scatteredbases were utilized.

After nearly thirty-five years of ser-vice, Major General Martin retired inOctober of 1980. In return for his dedi-cation he was awarded the Distin-

guished Service Medal, the first givento a reserve JAG.

Colonel Miller would retire in 1982,after spending nine years as the ReserveAdvisor to TJAG. During this periodhe worked for three different men, andalong with General Martin, he was inte-gral in implementing necessary changesfor the reserve community. ColonelMiller also made an impression on theactive duty JAGs. Apparently, GeneralVague often carried a ruler to measureinsignia, which so concerned ColonelMiller that he would use a caliper to puton his devices. One day the generalwas conducting his inspections andcame upon Lieutenant Colonel KeitheNelson, an active duty JAG working incareer management. When LieutenantColonel Nelson failed the ruler test, Gen-eral Vague commented that, “if the re-servist knows how to put on his uni-form, why can’t you.” 16 LieutenantColonel Nelson would eventually mas-ter the wearing of his uniform, and asTJAG would be one of the strongestinnovators in improving the Reserve.

While the concept of total force was

Moving from associate to partner, reservists have become an integral part of the JAG Department.


vant the first reservist appointed to theAir Force Court of Military Review. Ayear later the General made Colonel Le-vant the first reserve military judge.Another important improvement underGeneral Bruton was the Harper Plan17,which changed the way reservists wereassigned. Before then, bases near largemetropolitan areas, such as McGuireAFB, often had fifty-to-sixty MAs. Incontrast, the more remote northern tierbases usually did without. The HarperPlan eliminated the practice of attach-ing MAs to bases near their homes, nomatter what the manning. It also pro-vided that the number of reserve MAswould not exceed the active duty JAGsat the base, and that assignments werebased on the needs of the Air Force,not personal convenience. While theplan did meet some resistance — reserv-ists assigned far away from home didnot like having to pay their own travel

expenses to perform their inactive dutytraining (IDT) — MAs were now placedwhere they were needed, and every basecould benefit from their skills.

Upon General Bruton’s retirement in1985, Major General Robert Norris be-came TJAG. As was traditional, heturned over responsibility of the reserveprogram to his deputy. In this case itwas the one-time Lieutenant Colonelwith the uniform problems, now a Briga-dier General, Keithe Nelson. To betterunderstand where some of GeneralNelson’s ideas for the Reserve origi-nated, we turn to an MA who workedclosely with him for several years, Briga-dier General Michael McCarthy.

While on active duty, GeneralMcCarthy had been a prosecutor, de-fense counsel, military judge, and staffjudge advocate. 18 However, when hebecame an MA in 1966 he was onlyqualified to do legal assistance. Afteryears of discontentment with the workand training he was given as a reserv-ist, General McCarthy was given an op-portunity to express his dissatisfactionin 1981 when Colonel Keithe Nelson,the Tactical Air Command (TAC) staffjudge advocate, asked his reservists fortheir opinions. General McCarthy sug-gested creating a reserve training pro-gram where reservists were rotatedthrough each section in a legal officeevery few years so that they learnedhow to perform the tasks they would

need if they were ever mobilized. Healso recommended maintaining a folderin which the training was documented.Colonel Nelson adopted the ideas. Af-ter serving in nearly every major com-mand and improving reserve training ineach, General McCarthy retired in 1993.

One of General Nelson’s first acts asDeputy TJAG was to implement theTAC reserve training program Air Forcewide. He also ended the practice of re-assigning reservists to round out theirexperience. In a letter to the major com-mand staff judge advocates he stated:

No IMA will be reattachedfrom a base with Reserveundermanning without theapproval of the DeputyJudge Advocate General.Requests for re-attachmentwill be submitted to ARPC/JAR, who will forward themto AF/JAER with a recom-mendation for approval ordisapproval. In general, mis-sion requirements precludea career progression pro-gram for reserve judge advo-cates, or career broadeningassignments for IMAs be-low the grade of O-6. 19

General Nelson did not limit hischanges to the training program andassignments. In 1988, he made the An-

first envisioned in the seventies, it wasnot until the eighties that the integra-tion we see today between the activeand reserve forces became a reality.This can be seen in both the attitudesand the actions of the two JAG Depart-ments. An article in the spring 84 issueof THE REPORTER, VOLUME 14, NO. 3, suc-cinctly captures the new attitude:

Speaking of the reserves, re-member how different it waswhen reserve officers cameto your office, and (if we willbe honest with ourselves)most of us dreaded the day?What will we do with them?Unless we had a heavy legalassistance load, they wouldgo to the exchange, and goto the exchange, and go tothe exchange. Today wehave such an integrated pro-gram with the reserves thatwe simply could not operatethe Air Force JAG functionwithout them.

From 1980 to 1985 Major General Tho-mas Bruton was TJAG. The changesmade during his tenure reflected the newpartnership between the active and re-serve departments. In 1984, GeneralBruton made then Colonel Michel Le-

Air Reserve Personnell Center and MajGen Dennis Gray


nual Survey of the Law more uniform inits curriculum by eliminating the differ-ent locations and directing that the sur-vey would be held only in Denver andat the JAG school at Maxwell. Beforelong Denver was the exclusive location.That same year, the Air Force promul-gated the first canons of ethics for theReserve Department. Before then, theAmerican Bar Association and the vari-ous state bars had attempted to handlethe unique ethical issues encounteredby attorneys working for the Air Forceon a part-time basis. While some re-servists expressed opposition to theuniform rules, and many gray areas stillexisted, most accepted the canons asnecessary guidance for a legal environ-ment that was growing more complexevery year.

When General Norris retired in 1988,General Nelson became the TJAG. Un-like his predecessors, he maintainedcontrol of the reserve program ratherthan delegate it to his deputy. Shortlyafter becoming TJAG, General Nelsoncompletely revised AFR 45-2, the re-serve training regulation. The new regu-lation directed the use of formal train-ing folders and specific training forms,shortened the Reserve Forces JudgeAdvocate Course to one week, and es-tablished that reservists would now at-tend it and the Annual Survey of theLaw every four years. This last changecreated the current cycle of attendingone training course every two years. In1989, General Nelson eliminated over-seas training by reservists. His ratio-nale was that Reserve JAGs were notan augmentation force, but rather werethere to replace active duty personnelin base legal offices. The first majortest of mobilization to follow, the GulfWar, would not prove him wrong.

That reserve forces were becomingindispensable became apparent as earlyas 1984 with Operation ELDORADOCANYON, the attacks on Libya. With-out the assistance of unit and ANG tank-ers, the mission could not have beencarried out. But the first significant testof the integrated concept came duringthe showdown with Iraq in 1990 whenover 30,000 Air Force reservists weremobilized. While most were assignedto units or came from the Guard, several

thousand were IMAs. From the IMApool, only a few were judge advocates,but a reserve attorney and a paralegaldid deploy to the AOR. For attorneys,the lack of active duty JAGs going over-seas had obviated the need for mobili-zation. However, this did not stop re-servists from flocking to their assignedbases to assist the legal offices with thelast minute demand for wills and Pow-ers of Attorney.

The fighting in the desert had elimi-nated any lingering doubts about theneed for a well-trained reserve force, butthe ending of the Cold War would pro-vide the ultimate validation of the TotalForce concept. As the active forceshave been reduced and the emphasisof the mission changed to more peace-keeping and humanitarian roles, theReserve has become indispensable.Evidence of this can be found in AirForce Policy Directive (AFPD) 51-8, thenew training directive issued in 1993 byThe Judge Advocate General, MajorGeneral Nolan Sklute. Paragraph 1.1states that: “The Air Force relies to asignificant degree on Air Reserve Com-ponent judge advocates and paralegalsin meeting its defense commitments.” 20

Today andTomorrow

While the active forces have bornethe brunt of the troop reductions, theReserve has not been unaffected. Forthe first time since the post-Vietnamdrawdown of the mid-seventies, theReserve Department conducted ascreen-out board and 75 people wereshown the door. Funding also was cutand the Category B program began torun out of money for man-days by theend of fiscal year. But positive changeshave also resulted. In 1996, ROPMA,the Reserve Officer Personnel Manage-ment Act, became law. Unlike the pre-vious system where reservists werepractically guaranteed to make 0-5 aslong as they had minimum participationand remained alive, ROPMA, when fullyimplemented, will shorten the time be-tween promotions and promote the bestqualified, ensuring a quality force forthe future.

Today wehave suchanintegratedprogramwith thereserves thatwe simplycould notoperate theAir ForceJAG functionwithoutthem.


place on the bench, will be more con-cerned with playing in the game.

1 While the Air Force Reserve includesCategory A and B reservists and AirNational Guardsmen, this article willprimarily focus on mobilizationaugmentees, and, to a lesser extent, unitreservists. 2 R. Simons, History of the IndividualMobilization Augmentee Program 5(1991) (Air Reserve Personnel CenterSpecial Study) 3 Army Air Forces’ Plan for the AirReserve, Copsey, Robert L., MajorGeneral, USAF, “Your Reserve History,”in CONACM 45-1, Reserve RecruitingManual (1954). At the end of theSecond World War the Army Air ForceReserve had 130 bases with tactical andtraining aircraft. By 1947 this numberwas reduced to only 70 active bases,and before long the numbers dwindledto forty-one, and then twenty-three.Manpower peaked at 458,000 people inApril 1948 with participationopportunities limited to bases near largepopulation centers. Satellite baseoperations for flying training did notsurvive the budget cuts, and by the startof the Korean War, barely over a quarterof the more than 400,000 reservists wereparticipating in any kind of training.4 MICHAEL B. JENNISON, THE TUESDAY KNIGHT

GROUP. AIR FORCE RESERVE JUDGE ADVOCATE

TRAINING (Printed by Air Force LegalServices Agency (1996)).5 Lieutenant General George E.Stratemeyer, Address at the Air ReserveAssociation annual convention,Oklahoma City (Nov 1947); JENNISON,supra note 4, at 7.6 AFR 35-26 (December 1947).7 Jennison interview with Major GeneralReginald A. Harmon (USAF ret.) (Jan1991), JENNISON, supra note 4, at 6.8 Air Force Chief of Staff, General HoytS. Vandenburg signed General OrderNo. 7, dated 25 January 1949,establishing the JAG Department. Sixmonths later General Vandenburgsigned General Order No. 49 dated 13July 1949, establishing the JAGDepartment Reserve.9 Jennison interview with Harmon,

JENNISON, supra note 4, at 6.

To assist the active side in meetingthe challenges brought about by thehigh operation tempos, the Air ForceJAG Reserve has instituted several pro-grams. An extensive database has nowbeen created that identifies reservistsby specialty codes. This should en-able staff judge advocates and their staffto exploit more easily the expertise ofthe reserve force. Telecommuting hasalso been authorized as a means to per-form work. Special projects can now beassigned to reservists and completedwithout the added time and expense oftravel.

With the creation of the Expedition-ary Aerospace Force concept and theemphasis on operational law, the Re-serve is also becoming more involvedin deployment related areas. JAG Flag,the annual deployment exercise forjudge advocates and paralegals, in-cludes a reserve team. Additionally, theJAG School now conducts the De-ployed Air Reserve Components Op-erations and Law Course for ANG andunit commanders and their attorneys,who will now likely deploy together.

For a glimpse as to where the Reserveis heading, we need look no farther thanthe recent transformation of AFRES intothe Air Force Reserve Command(AFRC). ARPC is now a direct report-ing unit to the new command, and mostpeople see this as the first step towardunification of the unit and IMA worlds.With an increasing emphasis beingshown toward also integrating the Unitand ANG judge advocates, the day inwhich the Reserve will be a seamlessorganization where reservists transferbetween all three groups may not bevery far off.

During its first fifty years the AirForce JAG Reserve has grown from adisparate collection of underutilized,poorly trained backups into an increas-ingly integrated force multiplier that theactive side could not function without.The current MA to TJAG, Major Gen-eral Dennis Gray sees the move towardintegration continuing and creatingeven more flexibility in assignments andtraining. 21 If so, the Reserve shouldbecome an even stronger player in thefuture, and instead of trying to find a

10 JENNISON, supra note 4, at 8.11 Telephone interview with MajorGeneral Martin (USAFR ret.) (21 January1999). General Martin recalled oneboring lecture in particular about thesolar system. Hence the tag, “Little RedSchool House”.12 Id. General Harmon’s comments areas remembered by General Martin, andnot direct quotes.13

The forerunner of Space Command.14 Telephone interview with ColonelLawrence Miller (USAFR ret.) (20January 1999).15 Id.16 Id. The author also thanks MajorGeneral Nelson (USAF ret.) forpermission to use this story..17

Named after Major General WilliamL. Harper (USAFR ret), the man whodesigned the program. JENNISON, supranote 4, at 74. In his interview withColonel Jennison on 26 March 1990,General Harper related the following:“The Harper Plan—I think they namedit after me because they thought itwasn’t going to work. I designed theprogram because there just weren’t anymeans for deciding how to assignpeople to bases. Some bases were justoverflowing and had too many peopleto give meaningful work to. Otherscouldn’t get a reservist when theywanted one. It was time to do a littleselection in assignments. We tried it,and it worked. People complained, butthey accepted it.”18 Telephone interview with BrigadierGeneral Michael McCarthy (USAFR ret.)(24 January 1999).19

General Nelson letter dated 26August 1987.20 Reiterated with the revision to AFPD51-8 issued on 15 November 1998.21

Telephone interview with MajorGeneral Dennis Gray (USAFR) (22January 1999).


TheA N G

JourneyJunior Associate to Full Partner

COLONEL WILLIAM ALEXANDER

LIEUTENANT COLONEL SANDRA G. M ARSH

In 1981, the Air National Guard (ANG) State commander of an unnamed state was desperate for a judge

advocate staff officer.1 Recruiting ajudge advocate (JAG or JA) was so dif-ficult that the brigadier general felt com-pelled to personally recruit an ArmyNational Guard transportation officer—a mere lieutenant—who happened to bea civilian lawyer, to fill his lieutenantcolonel slot. Upon arrival on base, thenew JAG found that no one could re-member ever having a lawyer on staff.The chaplain had occupied the JAG slotfor years. The new JAG was assuredhe could learn all that was needed toknow for his new job by nine weeks ofimmersion into military law at the JudgeAdvocate Staff Officer Course(JASOC).

Nine weeks at theAir Force JudgeAdvocate GeneralSchool (JAG School)at Maxwell Air ForceBase proved that noone at JASOC knewmuch about the Air

National Guard. To the lieutenant, it ap-peared that JAG School instructors didnot sense that the legal requirementsfor the Air Guard were unique and theAir Force “answer” often did not applyto the Guard. The focus assumed thatANG judge advocates would be called-up on federal status like their Air ForceReserve counterparts, to backfill activeduty offices. Therefore, the rules wouldmerge on federal status so why worryabout unique state issues that the in-structors weren’t qualified to answer.That focus would change much later inthe Department’s history.

Once back at the State Headquartersunit, our now-fully trained judge advo-cate found plenty of work to do. Fortu-nately, there was no one within the state

Colonel Alexander (B.A., DavidsonCollege; J.D., Wake Forest UniversitySchool of Law) is the Air NationalGuard Assistant to the Commandant,Air Force Judge Advocate GeneralSchool. He is a member of the NorthCarolina Bar.

Lieutenant Colonel Marsh (B.S., Mis-sissippi University for Women; J.D.,

University of Ari-zona) is theD e p u t y S t a f fJudge Advocatefor the 187th

Fighter WIng, Ala-bama Air NationalGuard. She is amember of theAlabama Bar.

to contradict any pontificated legal opin-ion. One time, early in his tenure, ournew ANG JA came upon a unique legalissue where sage guidance was needed.Since there were almost four weeks be-tween unit drills, there seemed plentyof time to get proper advice. A detailedletter was fired off to The National


Guard Bureau/JA for answers. Eighteenmonths later, after numerous follow-upletters and telephone calls, a surpriseletter from the Bureau was delivered tothe JA. That letter said, in essence, “fig-ure it out yourself.” Well, an answerhad been crafted and implemented sev-enteen months earlier. But that letterfrom the Guard Bureau aptly describedthe entirety of legal support for Air Na-tional Guard judge advocates at thetime. And ANG JAs have been figur-ing it out for ourselves ever since.

Low visibility. In the early 1980s,Air National Guard judgeadvocates were required to at-

tend Annual Survey of the Law (ASOL)and the Reserve Forces Judge Advo-cate Course (RFJAC), courses which didnot discuss uniquely Guard issues.Other than these two courses, therewere no training requirements or pro-grams in place to assist Air Guard JAGofficers in maintaining currency in ar-eas in which they were expected to beproficient. Essentially, each state wasleft to its own resources to find solu-tions for legal problems facing ANGcommanders and units. Fortunately, thelevel of training and support for the AirNational Guard has risen exponentially

from The Judge Advocate General(TJAG) and the JAG School.

Interaction among ANG JAs andparalegals with their counterparts onactive duty and in the reserves was ex-tremely limited. Some Guard JAs occa-sionally trained for two weeks at an ac-tive duty base office. This two-weektour was the extent of Guard and activeduty JA contact for many officers. Andeven then, the Guard judge advocateswere underutilized, often doing noth-ing other than legal assistance. Thoughmost Air Guard legal teams served theircommanders admirably, their strengthsand abilities were largely unknown toTJAG and the Air Force legal commu-nity.

What did our new ANG JA from thatunnamed state do for his first two-weekannual training tour? He went to PopeAir Force Base to work at the base legaloffice. Typical of the era, he was as-signed, along with Air Force Reserveattorneys, to do legal assistance for theentire tour.

C an they perform? Thelow visibility of the ANG JAprogram led then-TJAG Major

General Thomas Bruton to inquire howANG judge advocates spent their time

on drill weekends. He furtherquestioned whether ANG

judge advocates couldperform their federal mis-

sion commensurate withtheir grade if mobilized.

General Bruton envisionedANG judge advocates

serving as “back-fill” foractive duty judge ad-vocates in the event

of mobilization,rather than re-maining with their

ANG units. He ex-pressed concerns

about ANG majors,lieutenant colonels

and colonels havingsufficient training and

experience to be assigned as StaffJudge Advocates (SJAs) for NumberedAir Forces (NAFs) or Major Commands(MAJCOMs). He likewise showed con-

cern over ANG assignments as MilitaryJudges, or as Directors or Deputy Di-rectors of HQ USAF/JA Divisions (e.g.,Civil Law, International Law, Claims,General Litigation).

With regard to General Bruton’s firstquestion, ANG judge advocates thenspent drill weekends performing manyof the same functions as we do now -advising commanders on a variety oflegal issues, serving as recorders, de-fense counsel and legal advisors for ad-ministrative boards, giving requiredbriefings, preparing unit members formobilization and providing legal assis-tance. As to TJAG’s second questionregarding the capability of ANG judgeadvocates to perform a federal missioncommensurate with their grade, the an-swer was . . . well, maybe not.

C ompleting requiredtraining. In 1982,requirements for ANG officers

to maintain federal status as judge ad-vocates included completing JASOC,attending RFJAC once every six years,and attending ASOL annually. A pre-liminary study conducted in 1982 byBrigadier General Thomas A. Facelle,the second ANG Assistant to TJAG,indicated that 83 of the 130 ANG judgeadvocates required to meet thesecourse attendance standards did not.At the time, there was a detailed man-agement, training and career programfor judge advocates in the Air ForceReserves. By regulation, MAJCOMStaff Judge Advocates bore the respon-sibility for training reserve componentjudge advocates. However, ANG judgeadvocates were not included in the regu-lation-governed program and TJAG hadno comparable program for the ANG.

General Facelle immediately estab-lished a goal of bringing ANG judge ad-vocates current in required course at-tendance. Additionally, he implementeda plan to forge closer relationships withthe MAJCOM Staff Judge Advocatesand to establish training standards tosatisfy all requirements of an ANG judgeadvocate’s federal mission. The planincluded assignment of ANG judge ad-vocates as liaisons to the MAJCOM andNAF Staff Judge Advocates. The liai-


sons were to be responsible for estab-lishing relationships and rapport be-tween ANG judge advocates and theiractive duty counterparts, monitoringcompliance with training requirements,and facilitating meaningful trainingthrough active duty tours. GeneralFacelle’s plan further included the for-mation of an ANG JA Policy Councilconsisting of twelve ANG judge advo-cates to assist in the process. TheCouncil workload was an additionalduty grabbed by JA volunteers eagerto make the Air Guard JA program aforce multiplier. The ultimate goal ofthe newly formed Council was to makethe “Total Force” policy a reality withregard to ANG JA.

The Council quickly made develop-ment and implementation of uniformtraining programs to be used by all ANGjudge advocates and paralegals one ofits top priorities. A Senior EnlistedAdvisor was soon appointed to theCouncil to oversee paralegal training.By the end of 1983, all ANG judge ad-vocates were in compliance with thetraining course attendance require-ments. Additional training initiativeswere underway, such as distribution ofself-inspection checklists and encour-aging training tours at active dutybases.

The most important initiative at thetime was the preparation of the Air Na-tional Guard Commander’s LegalDeskbook. Under the guidance andeditor’s pen of then-Lieutenant Colo-nel Robert Gruber, judge advocates fromacross the country authored a well-documented reference guide on legalissues unique to the Guard. TheDeskbook was sorely needed in the fieldand upon publication was highlypraised by all. A high compliment fol-lowed in the publication of Commanderand the Law, an active duty deskbooksimilar to the Guard deskbook.

Recognizing ANG value. Overthe next several years, ANG judge advocates demonstrated

their commitment to their wartime mis-sions and their relationship with the AirForce JA community grew. Air Guardjudge advocates were invited to partici-

pate in active duty conferences. Ac-tive duty judge advocates performedstaff assistance visits at ANG units.ANG judge advocates were amongthose chosen by TJAG as recruiters forthe active duty judge advocate program.Students attending JASOC, RFJAC andthe SJA course were given briefingsabout the ANG. TJAG pledged his sup-port to help ANG judge advocates im-prove their skills, particularly in the areaof military justice, and directed gainingMajor Commands (MAJCOMs) to be-come more involved in overseeing thetraining. When a second judge advo-cate position was authorized for eachANG flying unit, TJAG established apolicy for filling the positions, if pos-sible, with judge advocates leaving ac-tive duty or transferring from the AirForce reserve program.

A comprehensive, uniform trainingplan for ANG judge advocates was of-ficially implemented in 1987 when AirNational Guard Regulation (ANGR)50-9 was published. The regulation in-cluded a requirement for a training tourat an active duty base every other year,with a letter of evaluation to be renderedby the supervising active duty judgeadvocate. Training requirements were,for the first time, actively monitored andenforced.

The JAG School contributed greatlyto the training program through its re-sponsiveness to the continuing legaleducation needs of ANG judge advo-cates and paralegals. The Schoolprinted and distributed copies of theANG JA Deskbook and the ANGCommander’s Legal Deskbook, as wellas a number of active duty publications,to ANG legal offices. The School madeadditional slots in its courses availablefor the ANG, moving the ANG to a po-sition of equality with AF reserve per-sonnel in terms of opportunity forcourse attendance.

As a result of the ANG’s increasedemphasis on training to meet federalmission requirements and the positivesupport of active duty judge advocates,TJAG was increasingly able to rely uponANG judge advocates and paralegalsto assist in active duty legal offices withmanning shortages.

In 1990, TJAG recognized that ANGjudge advocates are “citizen-soldiers”with civilian job responsibilities; TJAGapproved reducing the requirement foractive duty base tours to once everythree years, and the requirement forASOL attendance to every other year,with an extra day devoted exclusivelyto ANG topics.

P art of the Operationalpackage. While increasedcommitment to meeting federal

requirements was necessary and pro-ductive, for both the ANG and activeduty judge advocate programs, the pri-mary responsibility of ANG legal officescontinued to be serving the needs oftheir commanders and units. This re-sponsibility was never so visible asduring Operations DESERT SHIELD andDESERT STORM when, within a periodof 60 days, ANG legal offices prepared17,700 wills and 13,894 powers of attor-ney and conducted 24,190 counselingsessions.

Increased cooperation between theANG and AF Reserve judge advocatesculminated in the first Deployed AirReserve Components Operations LawCourse ( DARCOLC), held at the JAGSchool in early 1994. In the course,

Maj Gen Timonthy Lowenberg


Reserve and Guard judge advocates andtheir commanders worked through adeployment scenario presenting a num-ber of legal issues impacting commanddecisions. It was the outside continen-tal United States (OCONUS) deploy-ment from Hell scenario. The issuespresented were historical and con-founding issues from actual deploy-ments.

The course was geared toward alert-ing the Commander-Judge Advocateteam to legal problems that could ariseon any deployment. The course pre-pared the team to resolve those prob-lems. ANG and Reserve judge advo-cates served as lecturers and seminarleaders for the course. The course re-sulted in better-informed commandersand, importantly, increased command-ers’ appreciation for their judge advo-cates. In every instance, DARCOLCformed stronger bonds between com-manders and JAs. Word of the course’susefulness spread quickly and nowcommanders, even active duty com-manders, are eager to attend. Thecourse is currently offered annually atthe JAG School, and some consider theANG/Air Reserve DARCOLC the bestcourse at the School.

Absolutely, they can per-form! By the mid-1990s, by allaccounts, the ANG Judge Ad-

vocate program had moved from its pre-vious status as “don’t expect too muchof that Associate,” to that of a Partner.ANG JAs were more fully utilized astheir training had better prepared themfor the task at hand. Now, in 1996 wherewas our ANG junior partner from thatunnamed state? That summer he de-ployed for two weeks to Spangdahlem,Germany to work at the base legal of-fice for the 52nd Fighter Wing. Hementored a new judge advocate throughhis first court-martial, acted as the legaladvisor for an administrative dischargeboard, wrote several briefing papers,and authored an original base policy forbody piercing and tattoos. He was givena “Team Eifel” award by the Staff JudgeAdvocate for his contributions.

Prior to 1993, the United States

Air Force lacked any Civil Affairs capa-bility; facilitating civilian-military rela-tionships in a deployed environment.In late 1993, the ANG became the firstand only Air Force component to havea Civil Affairs mission. TJAG’s CivilAffairs responsibilities were assumedby ANG judge advocates in State Head-quarters positions and given that mis-sion as their wartime tasking. Thesesenior judge advocates were identifiedfor the mission because they pos-sessed the experience and mature judg-ment necessary to be effective.

To be eligible to serve in a Civil Af-fairs capacity, ANG judge advocates arerequired to complete training at theJohn F. Kennedy Special WarfareSchool at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.The program started with one ANG JAdeployed to Haiti; the mission provedhighly successful and resulted in sev-eral judge advocates deployed in highvisibility assignments to Bosnia-Herzegovina in support of the DaytonAccords. The recognized importanceof the mission has led to creation of theposition of ANG Assistant to Air ForceSpecial Operations Command (AFSOC/JA), which is dedicated to the Civil Af-fairs mission.

The nature of the duties assumed byANG judge advocates in the Civil Af-fairs arena continues to quickly expand.In 1999, ANG judge advocates will be-gin their fourth and fifth rotations toBosnia-Herzegovina for 179-day tours.Work assignments in Bosnia have in-cluded the legal advisor to the Office ofthe High Representative, Chief of Envi-ronmental Law, the Election Commis-sion, the War Crimes Investigation, theBosnian Criminal Justice Reform Group,and more. Success has begotten morerequests for ANG support. NATO andUN schools are now open to ANG JudgeAdvocates. The possibility of usingANG paralegals for Civil Affairs is pres-ently under consideration.

In 1998, the Director of Training forthe United Nations Peacekeeping Or-ganization (UN/PKO) stated his conceptof operations for ANG judge advocates.The concept included ANG judge ad-vocates deployed as legal advisors toall United Nations Special Representa-

Currentplanners getoptimumflexibility inthe use ofjudgeadvocatesfrom any ofthecomponentsfor almostany mission.


tives for the Secretary General(UNSRSG) in all major military exercisessponsored by the United States at theCINC-JCS level. Even more dramatic,the UN/PKO concept includes usingANG judge advocates to actually de-ploy with UN Special Representativesof the Secretary General to act as legaladvisors on international humanitarianlaw issues. The concepts are currentlybeing implemented. Two ANG judgeadvocates have been assigned to aug-ment the full-time military staff at theUnited States Mission to the UnitedNations. ANG JAs have been selectedto deploy in April and May 1999 as le-gal advisors to the UN Special Repre-sentatives for military exercises in Bo-livia and South Africa. The United Na-tions has made a formal request to theUnited States government for Air Na-tional Guard Judge Advocates to de-velop and teach an eight day course oninternational humanitarian law to na-tional military leaders worldwide. Pres-ently that course is being developed byAir Guard JAs and upon approval byDoD, the State Department, and the UN,the course is expected to be first deliv-ered in Jamaica in August, 1999.

ANG judge advocates who retired inthe 1980s would not recognize the pro-gram of the late 1990s. The differencesin significant assignments and com-mander dependence are staggering. In1980, no one would have dreamed ofANG judge advocates being deployedas legal advisors for United NationsPeacekeeping Operations.

Has our ANG judge advocate fromthe unnamed state retired yet? Not yet;he’s trying to contribute to TJAG’s ANGJA Council and working as an Assis-tant to the JAG school and as an ad-junct instructor; he’s helping to put to-gether (along with HQ USAF Interna-tional Law Division and other ANG JAs)that UN course on international humani-tarian law and hoping to go to Jamaicain August, 1999.

Worthy force multipliers.Major General TimothyLowenberg, the current ANG

Assistant to TJAG, has been at the fore-front of progress of the Air Guard judge

advocate program. General Lowenbergrecently spoke about the new legal part-nership in the Air Force. He remarked,“During the past two decades, AirForce leaders of great vision created theenvironment for the Air Guard and AirReserves to grow into worthy forcemultipliers for the active duty. That earlyvision of a Total Force is now payinghuge dividends; current planners getoptimum flexibility in the use of judgeadvocates from any of the componentsfor almost any mission.”

“Air Guard Judge Advocates bringvaluable legal experience, both militaryand civilian, to the table of assets TheJudge Advocate General uses to meetthe legal challenges faced by the AirForce today. As we continue to proveourselves with each important assign-ment, professional collegiality is gainedand expectations grow. The Total AirForce Law Firm includes the Active, theGuard, and the Reserve. The JudgeAdvocate General of the Air Force nowconsiders his Air National Guard judgeadvocates as full partners in the law firm.As full partners, we support one an-other, we respect one another, and wework together for the good of the AirForce and the good of the nation.”

1 All facts are from the publishedTJAG’s ANG Council History, Fatherof the Council; The Facelle Years:1982-1984; Dawning of A New Era:The Elliott Years: 1985-1989; FullPartnership and Beyond: The PateYears: 1990-1993 (Vol. I through III)maintained at the AF Judge AdvocateGeneral School and at http://a f l s a . j a g . a f . m i l / G R O U P S /NATIONAL_GUARD/ANG/SOURCE/history.htm (checked 16 March 1999),or from the author’s personal knowl-edge or experience.

As fullpartners, wesupport oneanother,respect oneanother, andworktogether forthe good ofthe AirForce andthe Nation.


P

IF NOT

For Paralegals...

CAPTAIN DENISE M. BURKE

TECHNICAL SERGEANT SHERRIE L. ROGERS

The continuing success of the Air Force Judge AdvocateGeneral’s Department in delivering quality legal serviceswould not be possible without the contributions of talentedand dedicated Air Force paralegals.

paralegals. These contributions includethe creation of new paralegal positionsand the implementation of comprehen-sive training programs. Important in-novations have included the approvalof the paralegal badge and the increasedrecognition of the contributions of Re-serve and Air National Guard parale-gals.

In the beginning, paralegals wereclassified as “administrative special-ists.” Despite their legal duties, someservice members continued to refer tothem as “clerk-typists.” In the late 1940s,a fortunate few paralegals carried a let-ter properly introducing the bearer as a“legal specialist.” This letter helped togarner recognition for the primary du-ties and responsibilities of Air Forceparalegals. Several years later on 1 May

Paralegals, previously known as clerk-typists, legal specialists and legaltechnicians, have seen their duties and responsibilities evolve and growwith each passing year. Today’s paralegals are well-trained, invaluableassets to legal offices worldwide. Their success stems, in part, from thesignificant and lasting contributions made by the preceding generations of

1955, the Air Force formally recognizedthe enlisted personnel working in thelegal offices and authorized a new AirForce Specialty Code (AFSC). Itchanged from Legal Services AFSC“705X0” to Paralegal AFSC “881X0” in1988 to the present day Paralegal AFSC“5J0X1” in 1991.

Captain Burke (B.S., University ofMaryland; J.D., Southern MethodistUniversity) is an Instructor, MilitaryJustice Division, Air Force Judge Ad-vocate General School. She is a mem-ber of the State Bar of Texas.

Technical Sergeant Rogers is theCourse Director for the ParalegalCraftsman Course, Air Force JudgeAvocate General School.


Over the years, recognition of thecontributions of the paralegals in-creased and their influence in the De-partment grew. On 3 September 1970,The Judge Advocate General (TJAG),Major General James C. Cheney, se-lected CMSgt Steve Swigonski to be thefirst “Special Assistant to TJAG for Le-gal Airman Affairs.” This position hassince been renamed Senior ParalegalManager to TJAG and nine chief mas-ter sergeants have served in the posi-tion.1

Additional responsibility was givento Air Force paralegals when “test”Area Defense Counsel (ADC) officeswere set up in the First Judicial Circuiton 1 January 1974. The pilot ADC pro-gram was implemented worldwide thesame year and included new enlistedparalegal positions. These new posi-tions were created at both the circuit-level and in the new defense counseloffices. They included Chief Court Ad-

ministrator, Circuit Court Administrator,Assistant Circuit Court Administratorand Area Defense Administrator (nowknown as Defense Paralegal). The AreaDefense Counsel Program with its newparalegal positions was approved bythe Chief of Staff of the Air Force on 22July 1975.2 In response to new parale-gal duties and responsibilities, depart-mental leaders recognized the need fornew training courses and initiatives.

Innovations in training In October 1953, the first six-week AirForce Stenomask School was held atBolling AFB, Washington D.C. At thetime, the Air Force did not have a legal

school, so in 1954 legal specialists be-gan attending the Naval Justice Schoolat Newport, Rhode Island. On 5 Janu-ary 1972, the Air Force’s Legal ServicesSpecialist Course (3-level school) wasopened at Keesler AFB, Mississippi. Itwas a comprehensive, six-week course,training new paralegals in their legal du-ties and responsibilities. Until 1993,many of the paralegal courses weretaught at Keesler AFB, although somewere held at the Air Force Judge Advo-cate General School (JAG School) atMaxwell AFB, Alabama.

New paralegal courses were devel-oped throughout the 1970s, respond-ing to the needs and expectations of

(last page) CMSgt J. Prince at Basic Training, Lackland AFB in 1947; (left to right) Brig Gen House congratulat-ing A1C K. Griffin for being honor graduate of paralegal class 721206A with CMSgt B. Miller; A1Cs Bojarskipinning on two line name tags.

Paralegals learning in theirold home at Keesler AFB.Class 720329A graduation photo:(front, left to right) TSgt DeShaw, SSgt D. Segin, Sgt J. Hol-land, A1C L. Doyle, A1C G. Outten,A1C F. Cross, Amn T. Baker, andguest speaker Lt Col C. Slagle, Jr.;(back, left to right) Sgt J. Burge,Sgt S. Hefner, Amn C. Nowack,Amn F. Wilkes, Amn S. Rumery,Amn C. Parker, and Amn L. Turner.


paralegals and their supervising attor-neys. Recognizing the need to train su-pervisory paralegals, a pilot Legal Ser-vices NCOIC Course was conductedfrom 5-16 August 1974 at the JAGSchool. The course was later renamedthe Legal Services Advanced Course(LSAC) in 1976 and received the cur-rent title of Law Office Manager’s Course(LOMC) in 1988. The Career Develop-ment Course (CDC) for 5-skill level wasintroduced in January 1975. Later, theLegal Services Specialist RefresherCourse for Air National Guard and Re-servists was approved in January 1978and the first course was taught atKeesler AFB in August 1978.

Innovations in training continued inthe 1980s. In 1980, the first Claims andTort Litigation Course (CTLC) for legalspecialists was taught at the JAGSchool. The short-lived Paralegal Ad-vanced Legal Course (PALC) was heldin 1992, but was quickly phased out in1994. It was later incorporated alongwith CTLC in the Provisional ParalegalCraftsman Course that was introducedin August 1995.

To have all the Department’s coursestaught in one location, a new JAGSchool at Maxwell AFB was completedin 1993 and all of the enlisted paralegalcourses were moved from Keesler AFB.Having all legal courses taught in onelocation encouraged “team building”and mutual respect between judge ad-vocates and paralegals. Recognizingthis “team concept,” Judge AdvocateStaff Officer Course (JASOC) studentsand 7-level paralegals were first pairedup to work together on moot dischargeboards in August 1997. This “experi-ment” has been an unqualified success,

helping attorneys and paralegals rec-ognize the unique talents they eachpossess. In March 1998, legal researchusing LEXIS software was added to the7-level curriculum.

Continuing education for Air Forceparalegals has always been encouragedand increasing levels of proficiency arebeing required for upgrades. An asso-ciates degree program in paralegal stud-ies was approved and implemented on1 October 1979 by the Community Col-lege of the Air Force (CCAF). Further,upgrade to the 7-skill level requiredcompletion of the 2-volume Air ForceJob Qualification System (AFJQS) thatwas adopted in December 1985. How-ever, the proficiency requirements werechanged again in October 1986. Now, aparalegal must be proficient in militaryjustice or claims for the award of the

Paralegals in action. (from left) aposter paralegal; Col R. Barbara pre-sents a MSM to CMSgt J. Flake; andparalegals learning in their new homeat Maxwell AFB.

5-skill level and a paralegal must be pro-ficient in both areas for the award of a7-skill level.

Paralegal training has kept pace withtechnology. On 25 July 1997, the Para-legal Journeyman Course became thefirst CD-ROM CDC in Air Force history.The program was developed by SMSgtVal Eason and MSgt Jose Quilit. On 1December 1998, the Air Force Person-nel Center (AFPC) approved the use ofthese CDs in the Weighted Airman Pro-motion System (WAPS), making theparalegal career field the first in AirForce history to use CDs for WAPSpreparation.3 Promotion and enhancedprofessional development opportunitiesare not the only benefits paralegalshave enjoyed over the years.

(continued next page)

A paralegal using the stenomask method of court reporting.


�The perks�Periodically, the Air Force has had dif-

ficulty keeping trained and experiencedparalegals in the service. So in June1971, the paralegal career field wasawarded a variable reenlistment bonus.4

However, as first term reenlistment ratesincreased, the bonus was discontinuedin February 1976. Today, we have come“full circle.” An enlistment bonus wasimplemented for Zone A (21 months – 6years of service) on 18 June 1998 andfor Zone B (6 –10 years of service) on18 December 1998.5

In August 1971, TJAG authorized thewear of the two-line nametag.6 How-ever in July 1983, paralegals assignedto the Air Force Logistics Command(AFLC), the Air Training Command(ATC) and to Pacific Air Forces(PACAF) were no longer authorized towear the nametag. The commanders ofthese major commands (MAJCOM) hadwithdrawn the authority. Eventually, thenametag was completely phased out.The paralegal badge was approved in1994 and active duty, as well as Reserveand Air National Guard (ANG) parale-gals, began wearing the new badge.

The Total Force: Reserve andANG paralegals

The new badge was just one way AirReserve Component (ARC) paralegalsalso achieved recognition. Their ser-vice was commemorated by the creationof the Outstanding Reserve Legal Ser-vices Airman of the Year Award in 1983.The award was later renamed afterCMSgt David Westbrook. In institut-ing this award and others, the Depart-

ment acknowledged the significant con-tributions made by ARC paralegals whosupplement the active duty force andare frequently deployed worldwide. Toensure that they were fully equipped toperform their duties, additional require-ments for Reserve and ANG paralegalswere instituted.

In the 1980s, further training, as wellas recognition of achievement, was alsobeing mandated for Reserve and ANGparalegals. A new TJAG policy imple-mented in December 1984 required allreservists E-6 and below to receive up-dated training at least once every5 years through the Refresher Course,CTLC or LSAC. During that samemonth, the first Reserve Forces LegalServices Personnel screening board washeld at Air Reserve Personnel Center(ARPC) at Lowry AFB, CO. These in-novations demonstrate that ARC para-legals will continue to be an invaluableasset to the Air Force.

As the Air Force Judge AdvocateGeneral’s Department has evolvedand changed, so have Air Force para-legals. They have worked along sidejudge advocates delivering the high-est quality legal services. Their con-tributions have been numerous andsignificant. Without a doubt, this tal-ented, dedicated and well-trainedforce will continue to excel!

1 See biographies of the Senior

Paralegal Managers in this edition ofTHE REPORTER. 2 See article on the ADC program byMajor Norton in this edition of THE

REPORTER. 3 Interview with MSgt Jose Quilit, LawOffice Manager, Eglin AFB, Florida (3December 1998). 4 Interview with SMSgt James Whitaker(USAF ret.), Air Force Judge AdvocateGeneral School staff (1 February 1999). 5 Telephone interview with CMSgt DavidA. Haskins, Senior Paralegal Managerto The Judge Advocate General (1February 1999). 6 See article on Paralegal Badge in thisedition of THE REPORTER.

Hard at work. (clockwise

from immediately below)TSgt S. Rogers, TSgt Frazierteaching transcribing; SSgtR. Crockett.


Accepting The ChallengeTECHNICAL SERGEANT ANGELA X. BLACKSHAW

The Air Force Individual Mobili-zation Augmentee (IMA) para-legal program became an integral

part of the Air Force legal departmentduring the 1972 reorganization of TheJudge Advocate General’s DepartmentReserve and the Judge Advocate IMAprogram. The IMA paralegal compo-nent was established in 1975 as part ofthe 9005th Air Reserve Squadron, HQAir Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC),Lowry AFB, Colorado. Today, of ap-proximately 550 Guard and Reserve para-legals, more than 200 of those are IMAparalegals who provide vital researchand administrative and clerical supportat virtually every spot on the globewhere there can be said to be a “legaloffice” or Area Defense Counsel office.They are led by CMSgt Deborah ‘Fish’Fischer, the Chief, Reserve ParalegalProgram, Office of the Staff Judge Ad-vocate, who assumed her duties in 1994. While IMA paralegals have contrib-uted in many ways over the years, someof the more significant recent contribu-tions occurred: in 1991, during Opera-tions DESERT SHIELD/STORM; in1992, when they provided extensiveclaims assistance after Hurricane An-drew; in 1995 during Operation SOUTH-ERN WATCH, Riyadh Saudi Arabia; in1996 with NATO Bosnia and OperationSOUTHERN WATCH; helping to alle-viate the extensive claims backlog atAFLSA/JACC in 1997; and in 1998 fol-lowing Typhoon Paka. In 1975, the first five Reserve IMAparalegals were assigned to HQ ARPC.

CMSgt Heyo W. Peters, CMSgt WalterH. Dodd, CMSgt Clyde E. Carter, CMSgtEric W. Alexander, and CMSgt DavidWestbrook are the fabulous five whoseoutstanding contributions and dedi-cated service created what is known to-day as Air Reserve Component (ARC)Paralegals. Each one contributed to thesuccess of the Reserve Paralegal Pro-gram. In 1977, CMSgt Ken Fisher becamethe first Paralegal Program Manager.His tenure established such programsas the Reserve Paralegal Conference,Outstanding Reserve Legal Service Air-man of the Year award, the MAJCOMReserve Paralegal Workshop conductedat HQ ARPC. He also was key in theestablishment of reservists attendingthe Legal Services Refresher Course,the Paralegal Advanced Legal Course,and the Claims and Tort LitigationCourse. His countless efforts to buildthe paralegal program into an integralpart of the Reserve Forces are notewor-thy because, although some are re-named, these programs still exist todayas part of the ARC paralegal trainingprogram. In 1985, SMSgt (now CMSgt, Retired)Kushner took the reins as Reserve Para-legal Program Manager. In 1988, SMSgtLani Burnett was selected to fill the Re-serve Title 10, Statutory tour at HQARPC as the Chief, Reserve ParalegalProgram. This position was upgradedand SMSgt Burnett was promoted toChief Master Sergeant. She was the firstreservist to fill this position. Her ac-complishments include the first central-ized Annual Survey of the Law Course

in June 1992. In 1992,SMSgt Deborah

Fischer was selected as the acting Chief,Reserve Paralegal Program. In 1994 sheassumed her Active Guard/Reserve touras the Chief, Reserve Paralegal Program. For the past four years, ChiefFischer’s leadership, dedication, andvision have prepared the Reserve Para-legal program for the new millennium.By building upon the “Share theWealth” program, paralegals can nowtake advantage of travel, training, andmanning assistance in their support tolegal offices worldwide. Chief Fischerhas also established the Reserve ForcesSenior Paralegal Executive Council,bringing together the senior paralegalleadership in the Guard, Reserve, andactive duty to share information and setpolicy to ensure the best ARC parale-gal program. Like unit reservists, IMAs are thefirst-line backup for the Air Force in theevent of war, national emergency ornatural disaster. However, IMAs areunique in that they operate somewhatunilaterally–conducting their servicelives outside the traditional organiza-tional structure of unit reservists and,in conjunction with the needs of theiractive duty units, often taking the ini-tiative to arrange their own participa-tion and training. IMAs train with theactive duty Air Force. Their minimumparticipation are twenty-four InactiveDuty Training periods: twelve days ofIDTs and twelve days of annual toureach fiscal year. You will find highlytrained, professional IMA paralegalsworking along side their active dutycounterparts to carry out the Air Forcemission of readiness.

Technical Sergeant Blackshaw (A.A. inInformation Resources Management;B.S. in Administrative InformationManagement; M.A. in Information Sys-tems Management) is an IMA Parale-gal at Pope AFB. In her civilian ca-pacity, she works for Information Sys-tems Management in Fayetteville NC.

Reserve Forces ParalegalCourse 99-A.


The Judge Advocate General

Reginald C. Harmon, Major General

A graduate of the University of Illinois College of Law, General Harmon wasoriginally commissioned in the Army Reserve (Field Artillery) in 1926. He was calledto active duty in October 1940 at Wright Field, Ohio and served throughout WorldWar II in charge of legal representation for the Army Air Corps industrial expansionprogram. In 1945 General Harmon was named Staff Judge Advocate of the AirMateriel Command, a position he held until 1948. On 8 September 1948 General Harmon was appointed by the President as the firstJudge Advocate General of the newly created United States Air Force. He served inthat capacity for almost twelve years.As the first Judge Advocate General of the Air Force, General Harmon was instru-

mental in a number of important developments including the establishment in 1950 ofthe first Judge Advocate General School at Maxwell AFB, the adoption of the firstUniform Code of Military Justice, and the professional publication of standard mili-tary law references including The Court-Martial Reports and the Digests of Opinionsof The Judge Advocates General of the Armed Forces. In 1955 General Harmon served as a United States Delegate to the First United

Nations Congress in Geneva on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders.General Harmon retired from active duty on 31 March 1960.

Albert M. Kuhfeld, Major Genera l

A graduate of the University of Minnesota, General Kuhfeld was originally com-missioned in the Army Reserve (Infantry) in 1926. He was called to active duty inMarch 1942 and served at Camp Crowder, Missouri, Salina, Kansas, and in the ClaimsDivision of The Judge Advocate General’s Office in Washington, D.C. In June 1943General Kuhfeld was assigned to the Southwest Pacific, where he ultimately servedas the Judge Advocate for 5th Air Force. After World War II, General Kuhfeld returned to the United States and had assign-ments at the Office of The Air Judge Advocate in Washington, D.C., Ninth Air Forceat Biggs Field, Texas, and Headquarters, Air Transport Command. In July 1948 hemoved to the Office of The Judge Advocate General of the newly created UnitedStates Air Force, where he served as Chairman of a Board of Review, on the Air ForceJudicial Council, and as Assistant Judge Advocate General for Military Justice. In February 1953 General Kuhfeld was appointed the Assistant Judge AdvocateGeneral, a position he held for seven years. During that time, he was instrumental inimplementing many of the Status of Forces Agreements that define the legal status ofAmerican forces overseas. General Kuhfeld was appointed by the President as The Judge Advocate General effective 1 April 1960 and served until30 September 1964.


Robert W. Manss, Major General

A graduate of the University of Michigan and the University of CincinnatiSchool of Law, General Manss enlisted in the Army Air Corps in 1942. Aftercompeting Officer Candidate School he served with the 56th Bombardment Squad-ron at Key Field, Mississippi. In 1944 General Manss was assigned to the 404th

Fighter Group, and served in the European Theater of Operations until 1946,eventually as the 404th Group Intelligence Officer. After a brief return to private law practice, General Manss returned to activemilitary service in 1947 at Headquarters, Air Materiel Command. He served thereas Chief, Military Affairs and Military Justice Division until 1952. He then trans-ferred to Pepperrell Air Base, Newfoundland, where he was Staff Judge Advo-cate until 1955. General Manss moved to the Office of the Judge Advocate General in Wash-ington, D.C. in 1955, and the following year became Chief of the Tax and Litiga-tion Division. In 1959 he became the Staff Judge Advocate, Air Research andDevelopment Command, where he served until 1963.

In April 1963 General Manss returned to Washington, D.C. as the Assistant Judge Advocate General. He was appointed bythe President as The Judge Advocate General effective 1 October 1964 and served until September 1969.

James S. Cheney, Major General

A graduate of Young L.G. Harris Junior College and Atlanta Law School,General Cheney joined the Army Air Corps as an aviation cadet in October 1941.After serving as an instructor navigator, he joined 8th Air Force in England inMarch 1943. He flew 57 combat missions with the 306th and 303rd BombardmentGroups. In 1946 General Cheney became Base Legal Officer for the 313th Troop CarrierGroup. He also served as Deputy Staff Judge Advocate for the European AirTransport Service, and as Base and Wing Legal Officer with the 61st Troop CarrierWing. After returning briefly to the United States, General Cheney left for the Far Eastin July 1950, and flew as a navigator with the 3rd Bombardment Group. He thenserved as Legal Officer at Iwakuni Air Base, Japan and later with 5th Air Force. In 1951 General Cheney became Deputy Staff Judge Advocate, HeadquartersAir Proving Ground. He moved to Washington, D.C. in 1954, first as a memberand then Chairman of a Board of Review, and later as Executive Officer to The Judge Advocate General. In 1960 General Cheneybecame Staff Judge Advocate, 3rd Air Force, and in 1962 Deputy Staff Judge Advocate, United States Air Forces Europe. Hereturned to the Office of The Judge Advocate General in 1964 as Director of Military Justice. In 1967 he became Staff JudgeAdvocate, Pacific Air Forces. In February 1969 General Cheney became the Assistant Judge Advocate General. He was appointed The Judge AdvocateGeneral by the President in September 1969 and served until September 1973.


Harold R. Vague, Major General

A graduate of the University of Colorado, General Vague enlisted in the ArmyAir Corps in March 1942. After attending aviation cadet training he receivednavigator wings and was commissioned in June 1943. General Vague flew 25combat missions on B-17 aircraft in the European Theater of Operations. General Vague served in various staff positions until 1947, when he was ableto return to the University of Colorado to complete his law degree. He thenattended navigator/bombardier training and in 1950 went to Biggs Air ForceBase, Texas as a navigator/bombardier in B-50 aircraft. He later served at Biggs asAssistant Legal Officer for the 97th Bombardment Group. In 1951 General Vague was assigned to 8th Air Force, where he served asAssistant Chief, Military Justice Division. In 1955 he moved to the United StatesAir Force Academy, where he served first as a legal staff officer, and then from1956 to 1959 as an associate professor of law. In 1959, General Vague became StaffJudge Advocate for the 3rd Air Division, and in 1961 Chief of the LegislativeDivision in the Office of The Judge Advocate General. In 1965 he was assigned asStaff Judge Advocate, 15th Air Force, and in 1969 as Staff Judge Advocate, Headquarters, Pacific Air Forces. General Vague returned to Washington, D.C. in 1971 as the Assistant Judge Advocate General. He was appointed The JudgeAdvocate General by the President on 1 October 1973 and served until 1 October 1977.

Walter D. Reed, Major General

General Reed enlisted in the Army Air Corps in August 1943, and laterentered the aviation cadet program. After being commissioned, he was ulti-mately assigned to a B-29 bombardment group at Salina, Kansas. He was re-leased from active duty in 1946 and entered Drake University, where he gradu-ated from the College of Commerce and the School of Law.

General Reed was recalled to active duty in 1951 and served as an assis-tant staff judge advocate at Holloman AFB, and then as Staff Judge Advocate ofthe 18th Fighter-Bomber Wing in Korea. He returned to the United States in 1953and served at the Air Force Missile Test Center in both military justice and civillaw assignments.

In 1958 General Reed was assigned to the Directorate of International Lawat Headquarters United States Air Forces Europe. He attended The Hague Acad-emy of International Law in 1960, and in 1962 earned a Master of Laws degreefrom McGill University. In 1963 General Reed joined the International Law Divi-sion of the Office of The Judge Advocate General. From 1967 to 1969, he served

in Bangkok as Legal Advisor to the United States Ambassador to Thailand.General Reed next became the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate, Headquarters Air Force Systems Command, and then in 1970,

Chief of the International Law Division, Office of The Judge Advocate General. In May 1973 he became Director of Civil Law, andthen in October 1973, the Assistant Judge Advocate General.

General Reed was appointed The Judge Advocate General by the President on 1 October 1977 and served until 31 August 1980.


Thomas B. Bruton, Major General

A graduate of the University of Colorado, both undergraduate and law school,General Bruton later earned masters degrees at both The George WashingtonUniversity and Auburn University. He was commissioned through ROTC andentered active duty in September 1954. He first served as an assistant staffjudge advocate at McGuire AFB, Otis AFB, and then Selfridge AFB.

In 1956 General Bruton transferred to Wheelus Air Base, Libya, and then in1957 to Wiesbaden Air Base, Germany. In 1959 he moved to Headquarters 17th

Air Force, Ramstein Air Base, Germany. General Bruton returned to the UnitedStates in 1960, first as an instructor and later assistant professor of law at theAir Force Academy.

After completing Air Command and Staff College in 1965, General Brutonserved at 2nd Air Division and then Headquarters, 7th Air Force, Tan Son NhutAir Base, Republic of Vietnam. In 1966 he joined the Litigation Division,Office of The Judge Advocate General, first as a member and later as chief.

After completing Air War College in 1971, General Bruton became DeputyStaff Judge Advocate, Military Airlift Command. In 1973 he transferred toHeadquarters, United States Air Forces Europe, first as Deputy Staff Judge Advocate and then as the Staff Judge Advocate.General Bruton returned to the Military Airlift Command as Staff Judge Advocate in 1977 and then in 1978 became Staff JudgeAdvocate, Strategic Air Command.

General Bruton was appointed The Judge Advocate General by the President in September 1980 and served until September1985.

Robert W. Norris, Major General

A graduate of the University of Alabama, both undergraduate and law school,General Norris was commissioned through ROTC, and entered active duty inMarch 1955. He then served as an assistant staff judge advocate at AmarilloAFB, Texas and Ladd AFB, Alaska and then was released from active duty in1957. He was recalled to active duty in 1959, and served first as an assistant staffjudge advocate and then as the Staff Judge Advocate, Brooks AFB, Texas. In 1963 General Norris moved to Hickam AFB, Hawaii, where he served asdeputy director of civil law, Headquarters Pacific Air Forces. After completingAir Command and Staff College in 1968, he became director of civil law, Head-quarters Tactical Air Command. In 1969 General Norris moved to the CareerManagement Division, Office of The Judge Advocate General and in 1973 hebecame chief of that division.

General Norris graduated from the National War College in 1975, and be-came Staff Judge Advocate, 314th Air Division, Osan Air Base, Korea. He re-turned to Washington, D.C. in 1976 and served as Chief, Defense Services Divi-sion, Chief, International Law Division, and finally Director of Civil Law. GeneralNorris became Staff Judge Advocate, Strategic Air Command in 1982.

General Norris became Deputy Judge Advocate General in 1983 and was appointed The Judge Advocate General by thePresident in September 1985, serving until June 1988.


Keithe E. Nelson, Major General

A graduate of the University of North Dakota, both undergraduate and lawschool, General Nelson was commissioned through ROTC and entered activeduty in August 1959. He served as an assistant staff judge advocate, first atChennault AFB, Louisiana, then at Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany. GeneralNelson returned to the United States in 1965 and became Staff Judge Advocate,Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota.

After graduating from Air Command and Staff College in 1969, General Nelsontransferred to England, where he served as the Staff Judge Advocate at Royal AirForce Station, Wethersfield and Royal Air Force Station, Bentwaters. He returnedto the United States in 1973 to become deputy chief, Career Management andPlans Division, Office of The Judge Advocate General. He became chief of thatdivision in 1974, and then in 1977 moved to Maxwell AFB as Commandant of theAir Force Judge Advocate General School.

General Nelson became Staff Judge Advocate, Tactical Air Command in 1981,and in 1982 he returned to Washington, D.C. to become Director of the Air ForceJudiciary and Vice Commander, Air Force Legal Services Center. In 1984 he be-came Staff Judge Advocate, Strategic Air Command.

In September 1985 General Nelson returned to Washington, D.C. as the Deputy Judge Advocate General. He was appointedThe Judge Advocate General by the President in June 1988 and served until May 1991.

David C. Morehouse, Major General

A graduate of the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, and Creighton LawSchool, General Morehouse received a direct commission in August 1960. Heserved initially as an assistant staff judge advocate at Mountain Home AFB,Offutt AFB, and Ramey AFB, Puerto Rico. In 1968 General Morehouse became the Staff Judge Advocate, 3rd TacticalFighter Wing, Bien Hoa Air Base, Republic of Vietnam. He returned to theUnited States in 1969 as the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate at Travis AFB,California and the Chief of Military Justice, 22nd Air Force. From August 1971 to August 1972, General Morehouse attended TheGeorge Washington University through the Air Force Institute of Technol-ogy Program and earned a Master of Laws degree. He remained in Washing-ton, D.C. as a member of the Litigation Division, Office of The Judge Advo-cate General and in 1973 became assistant executive to The Judge AdvocateGeneral. After completing the National War College in 1977, GeneralMorehouse was assigned to Hickam AFB, Hawaii as Staff Judge Advocate,15th Air Base Wing.

General Morehouse became Staff Judge Advocate, Air Force Manpower and Personnel Center in 1980. In 1982 he wasassigned as Staff Judge Advocate, Tactical Air Command and in 1985, as Staff Judge Advocate, Strategic Air Command.

General Morehouse became the Deputy Judge Advocate General in 1988 and was appointed The Judge Advocate General bythe President in May 1991, serving until July 1993.


Nolan Sklute, Major General

A graduate of Union College, New York, and Cornell University School of Law,General Sklute was commissioned through ROTC and entered active duty in Janu-ary 1966. He served initially as an assistant staff judge advocate, first at LukeAFB, Arizona, then at Athenai Airport, Greece. In 1971 General Sklute attended the National Law Center and earned a Masterof Laws degree in government contracts. He remained in Washington, D.C. serv-ing first as a member, then chief, of the General Litigation Branch. After complet-ing the Armed Forces Staff College, General Sklute was assigned to March AFB,California as the Staff Judge Advocate. He became the Staff Judge Advocate atBitburg Air Base, Germany in 1979. General Sklute returned to Washington, D.C. in 1982 to attend the National WarCollege. He then served as the deputy chief of the Claims and Tort LitigationDivision, the executive to The Judge Advocate General, and finally as the Directorof Civil Law, all at Headquarters, USAF. General Sklute became the Staff Judge Advocate, Air Force Logistics Command

and Commander, Air Force Contract Law Center, Wright-Patterson AFB Ohio in 1988.In 1991, General Sklute returned to Washington, D.C. as the Deputy Judge Advocate General. The President appointed him

The Judge Advocate General in August 1993, where he served until February 1996.

Bryan G. Hawley, Major General

A graduate of the University of North Dakota, both undergraduate and lawschool, General Hawley entered the Air Force in October 1967 as an assistant staffjudge advocate assigned to Castle AFB, California. He next served as the chief ofmilitary affairs and civil law and as a certified military judge while assigned toElmendorf AFB, Alaska. After an assignment as chief of civil law at Alaskan AirCommand, in 1972 General Hawley began a four year tour as a faculty member at theUnited States Air Force Academy. General Hawley was assigned as Staff JudgeAdvocate at Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota in 1976, which was followed by a tour asthe chief of the Preventive Law and Legal Aid Group at Headquarters, USAF,Washington, D.C., beginning in 1979. Remaining in Washington, D.C. throughJuly 1985, General Hawley served as the military assistant to the Air Force GeneralCounsel, followed by a year as a student at the National War College. Returning to the bench as a military judge in July 1985, General Hawley becamethe Chief Judge of the 6th Judicial Circuit at Rhein-Main Air Base, West Germany,serving until May 1988. Upon his return to the United States, General Hawleyembarked upon two consecutive staff judge advocate assignments, first at 9th AirForce and United States Central Command Air Forces, Shaw AFB, South Carolina, then at Headquarters, Military Airlift Com-mand, Scott AFB, Illinois. Returning to Washington, D.C. in August 1991, General Hawley served as the Director of the Air ForceJudiciary until July 1992 when he assumed command of the Air Force Legal Services Agency at Bolling AFB, D.C.

In April 1994, General Hawley became the Staff Judge Advocate for Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Virginia. GeneralHawley was appointed The Judge Advocate General by the President in February 1996, serving until January 1999.


William A. Moorman, Major General

A graduate of the University of Illinois, both undergraduate and lawschool, General Moorman was commissioned through ROTC and enteredthe Air Force in September 1971. After assignments at Richards-GebaurAFB, Missouri and Yokota AB, Japan, General Moorman returned to theUnited States in August 1977 as the deputy staff judge advocate, thenStaff Judge Advocate, 31st Tactical Fighter Wing, Homestead AFB, Florida.

After completing Air Command and Staff College in July 1980, GeneralMoorman became Staff Judge Advocate, 832nd Air Division, Luke AFB,Arizona, followed by tours in Washington, D.C. beginning in July 1983 aschief of Preventive Law and Legal Aid Group, then as chief, Career Man-agement and Plans Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General, and,finally, in August 1988, as a student at the National War College. In June1989, General Moorman became Staff Judge Advocate for 12th Air Force/US Southern Command Air Forces, Bergstrom AFB, Texas. In August1991, General Moorman assumed duties as the deputy staff judge advo-cate, Strategic Air Command, Offutt AFB, Nebraska followed by a tour asStaff Judge Advocate, United States Strategic Command from June 1992 toJuly 1993. Returning overseas in August 1993, General Moorman nextbecame the Staff Judge Advocate, United States Air Forces in Europe,Ramstein AB, Germany.

Upon his return to the United States in July 1995, General Moorman assumed command of the Air Force Legal Services Agency,Bolling AFB, Washington, D.C., serving until March 1996, when he began his tour as Staff Judge Advocate, Air CombatCommand, Langley AFB, Virginia.

Appointed by the President, General Moorman became the 13th The Judge Advocate General on 27 January 1999.


MAJOR N ORMAN THOMPSON

Before WeHad

Wings

General William T. Sherman’s headquar-ters in Atlanta. He subsequently ac-companied the General on his two mostfamous campaigns: the March to the Seaand the March through the Carolinas.Since there was little traditional judgeadvocate work available at headquar-ters, he was given the position of As-

I n September 1864, a successful, thirty five-year-old Missouri lawyer named HenryHitchcock refused a personal offer from Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton to beassigned as judge advocate in his hometown of St. Louis, asking instead for “service at the front.”1 His request was granted. In November of that year, he was commis-

sioned a major, assigned to the Judge Advocate General’s Department, and sent tosistant Adjutant-General and tasked tohelp the General with personal corre-spondence and other staff matters.2

Major Hitchcock served his com-mander and his profession with distinc-tion.3 He was also an early practitionerof “operations law,” engaging Shermanand his staff in lively and frank discus-

Major Thompson ( B.A., San FranciscoState University; J.D., Hastings Col-lege of the Law) is an Instructor, AirForce Judge Advocate General School.He is a member of the California Bar.

sions about the application of the lawof war to his sometimes brutal militaryoperations.4 Sherman wrote of his new

“YOU, SIR, ARE A SPY” The Judge Advocate General, Colonel John Laurance, Examines British Major John Andre, 1780. Reprinted by permissionof the artist, Mr. Don Stivers, 1998.


judge advocate: “He is a lawyer andscholar and can draw up my rudethoughts in better array, as well as lendme a hand in the voluminous work ofthe office.”5 Those few words, fromthe pen of a general who was himself alawyer, are but one example of the praiseso many American commanders havehad for their judge advocates through-out our history. Even today, a goodJAG is much more than a master of thecriminal and civil law—he or she is alsoa key staff officer, a problem solver,trusted advisor, and the ethical standardbearer for the command.

Of course, Major Hitchcock’sstory is only one among thousands thatcould be told of the judge advocateswho have served our country from theAmerican Revolution to the present day.This article will focus on the Revolu-tionary War origins and developmentof the U.S. Army6 judge advocate posi-tion from 1775 though the birth of theAir Force and the Uniform Code of Mili-tary Justice (UCMJ) in the middle of thiscentury. Let us begin by looking backto a war that commenced 89 years be-fore Major Hitchcock served with Gen-eral Sherman.

In The Beginning�And A LittleBefore. United States Army JudgeAdvocates proudly wear a regimentalcrest composed of their branch insig-nia and the date “1775.” The elegantbadge makes a simple but impressivepoint: “We are as old as the Army it-self.” The fact is, judge advocates ex-isted before our nation did. Indeed,they were the first judicial officers ap-pointed under the authority of the emer-gent United States. More than a de-cade before the Framers of the Consti-tution conceived the institutions of theCongress, Presidency, and SupremeCourt, fourteen years before there wasa Chief Justice or an Attorney General,and a year before the Declaration of In-dependence was signed, the SecondContinental Congress appointed thefirst Judge Advocate of the Army, LtCol William Tudor, in 1775. Both thejudge advocate title and the military lawsof the Continental Army were adopteddirectly from the British Army. EarlyAmerican judge advocates like Lt Col

Tudor were lawyers and combat sol-diers. They not only kept good orderand discipline in the Army, but alsocommanded and fought along side thetroops to win American independence.7

Lt Col Tudor served nearly 225 yearsago, but the true origins of our profes-sion are found in the ancient past, whereorganized systems of military justice areknown to have existed as far back asancient Mesopotamia.8 The Romansalso had a comprehensive system ofmilitary justice and specialized officialsto administer it.9 After the Fall of theRoman Empire, military law evolved intoa diverse set of codes and customs onthe Continent and in post-Norman Con-quest England.10 The exact develop-ment of military law during this periodis somewhat foggy,11 but things beginto come into focus with the develop-ment of the British Articles of War, thegrandfather of our modern UCMJ. TheBritish Articles, which were issued byroyal decree until 1879, have their earli-est roots in the 1190 Ordinance of Rich-ard I.12 They were first issued as “Ar-ticles of War” by Richard II, in 1385,and gradually evolved over the next 500years until they were finally replacedby statutes in the 19th Century.13

By 1765, the Articles of War is-sued by King George III had developedinto a comprehensive code of 111 Ar-ticles, covering virtually all aspects ofmilitary discipline and the administra-tion of military justice. These were theArticles of War, slightly modified in1774, in effect at the outbreak of theRevolutionary War,14 and in 1775, theSecond Continental Congress adoptedthem, nearly in toto, for use in the regu-lation of the Continental Army.15

Around 1666, the British Articleshad started to make reference to the roleof the “judge advocate.” Although thetitle was in use well prior to this, havingevolved from the much older title of“judge-martial” or “judge-marshal.”The prefix “judge” recognized thatthese officers, in addition to acting asprosecutors, were also given judicialauthority to decide certain cases andhand down punishments.16 The Brit-ish Articles of 1765 specifically refer-enced the “Judge Advocate General”as the official who would “prosecute in

His Majesty’s Name.”17 Adoption ofthe British Articles of War and the of-fice of Judge Advocate General madeperfect sense to the Founders. Theyalready knew these laws and actors, andhad seen them produce perhaps themost disciplined Army in history.18 Sothese “new” American Articles of Warwere the legal framework given to ourRevolutionary War Judge AdvocatesGeneral: Brevet Colonel William Tudor(1775-1777),19 Colonel John Laurance(1777-1782), and Colonel ThomasEdwards (1782-1783).

1775-1782: Our Founding FatherJudge Advocates. In the beginning,the Continental Army had a legal staffof one: Colonel Tudor, and it was notunusual for him to be found personallyprosecuting courts-martial. As the warprogressed, however, the ContinentalCongress provided the Judge AdvocateGeneral20 with two additional judge ad-vocates at General Headquarters, andone for each separate army and territo-rial department (Northern, Middle, andSouthern). If not already commissioned,these subordinate judge advocateswere given the rank of captain, and au-thorized the subsistence of a lieutenantcolonel. However, most of these offic-ers also held commissions in regimentsof the line, and were referred to by thoseranks.21

Judge advocates of the Revolu-tionary period functioned as full-timestaff officers as well as military pros-ecutors, board recorders, and law offic-ers.22 The judge advocate wore threehats in court: he was legal advisor tothe court-martial, government prosecu-tor, and “friend” of the accused, pre-senting any evidence favorable to him.The members were responsible for mak-ing legal rulings, findings of fact, andrecommendations on sentence. Ver-dicts were not announced in court. Theyfirst had to be approved by the com-mander, and were then reported to theaccused, who was usually in custody.23

Individual defense counsel were permit-ted in Revolutionary War courts-mar-tial, but their function was somewhatlimited. General James Wilkinson ex-plained: “No one will deny to a pris-oner the aid of Counsel, who may sug-


And Now...The Rest of the Story

As with many of our nation’s founders, John Adams was a lawyer. As such,he had a variety of students over the years study law under his tutelage.One such student, William, was particularly impressive. William was a

Boston native, having been born there on 30 June 1750 and graduated from HarvardCollege in 1769. After studying law under John Adams, he was admitted to theMassachusetts Bar in 1772 at the age of 22. He practiced law in Boston until theoutbreak of war against the Crown.

When General George Washington assumed command of the American forcesin their campaign to take Boston, he obtained authority to enforce his orders throughthe newly established American Articles of War. Article IV of Section XV of theBritish Articles was adopted verbatim by the fledgling nation, and read “The JudgeAdvocate General, or some person deputed by him, shall prosecute in His Majesty’sname.” General Washington appointed William to the position of “Judge Advocateof the Army” on 29 July 1775. The Second Continental Congress, sitting at Phila-delphia, confirmed the appointment by electing 26 year old William to be The JudgeAdvocate General (TJAG) of the 35 Regiment strong Continental Army. Williamwas made a brevet colonel in the Army of the United States. He served as TJAGuntil 9 April 1777, when he resigned as the TJAG, but continued in service to hisnew Nation in Henley’s Additional Continental Regiment until April 1778 where-upon he returned to his home in Boston and resumed his law practice. He laterbecame a member of the Massachusetts General Court and Secretary of State ofMassachusetts.

William married and had children, who had more children, and so on, untilThomas, the great-great-grandson of the first Judge Advocate General, was born.This child grew to adulthood and followed in his forefather’s footsteps by obtaininghis law degree from Syracuse University and entering the military. Young Tomentered the United States Army where he served as an intelligence officer. After ashort time in the Army, he entered the Air Force where he serves today as a judgeadvocate. Colonel Thomas Tudor, great-great-grandson of the first Judge AdvocateGeneral, Colonel William Tudor, is presently the Chief, International Law Divi-sion, HQ US Air Forces in Europe. And now you know....the rest of the story.

( From an interview with Colonel Tudor)

gest Questions or objections to him, toprepare his defence in writing—but heis not to open his mouth in Court.”24

The following excerpts, from theOrderly Book of the 3rd North CarolinaRegiment of the North Carolina Bri-gade,25 which was part of Washington’sArmy during 1777 and 1778, give thereader a feel for the crimes and punish-ments of the time. GeneralWashington’s very personal approachto discipline is also apparent [spellingand abbreviations are original]:

July 7, 1777 HeadquartersMorristown: “John Halfpenny…charged with getting drunk,causing a riot and abusing hisofficers, no evidence appearingagainst him the court orders himto be released from his confine-ment. Dennis O’Bryan a soldierbelonging to the NC Regt…charged with his having de-serted from that detachment.The prisoner pleads guilty but itappears to the court that he isincapable of Rendering any ser-vice to the country as he appearsto be not able in body and a stu-pid, foolish person. Sentencedhim to be drummed out of theservice.

17th August 1777 Camp atTrent Town: John Mitchellcharged with desertion, beingacquitted by the court martial, isto be released from his confine-ment and to join his Regt. Tho-mas Stead charged with havingstolen 30 Dollars from Capt.Steel, was found guilty of thecharge & sentenced by the courtto receive 50 lashes on his bareback, and after two day’s con-finement, unless he returns thesaid 30 Dollars, to receive 50more and to be put under stop-pages monthly until he shallhave paid the same, which sen-tence is approved….

11th August 1778, Head Quar-ters White Plains: At a Gen-eral Court Martial…Capt.Seely…tried for leaving his

guard before he was properlyrelieved; found guilty of thecharge…and sentenced to bereprimanded in the Genl Orders.The Commander in Chief [Gen-eral Washington] confirms thesentence, tho’ he could wish aseverer punishment had beendecreed to an offence, which isof the highest military criminal-ity… and the safety of the armyaltogether depending on thestrict discipline and unremittingvigilance…. At the same court,Neal McGonnigal… tried forthreatening Capt. Scott’s life;also for drawing his bayonet andstabbing him repeatedly while inthe execution of his office;found guilty of the charges ex-

hibited against him, andsentenced…to be shot to death.His Excellency, the Commanderin Chief, approves the sentence. 21st August 1778, Friday HeadQuarters, White Plains: TheCommander in Chief hasthought proper to pardon…NealMcGonnigal. Not withstandingthe general good character ofthe latter criminal as a soldier, thewounds he has received fight-ing for his country, the warmsolicitation of several respect-able officers in his behalf & eventhe special intercession of Capt.Scott himself to whom the injurywas offered, it is with extremedifficulty the Commander in


Chief could prevail with himselfto pardon an offence so atro-cious…. Even the least disre-spect from a soldier to an officeris criminal and deserves severepunishment…. The Genl ishappy to reflect that this is thefirst time an instance of the kindhas come before him, he thinksit necessary to warn every sol-dier that a similar one will neverhereafter be forgiven, whatevermay be the character of the of-fender or the intercession of theofficers. [Also], several desert-ers from this Army to the Enemywho have since returned, hav-ing been permitted with impu-nity to join their Regiments, theGenl, to prevent an abuse of hislenity…takes occasion to de-clare in explicit terms that no manwho shall desert to the enemyafter the publication of this or-der, will ever be allowed to en-joy the like indulgence….

Despite his stern warnings, deser-tion to the enemy continued to be a prob-lem throughout the War. By the time ofthe decisive Battle of Yorktown in Oc-tober 1781, Washington was so fed up,he was ready to dispense with courts-martial and due process altogether, an-nouncing by general order: “Every de-serter from the American Troops afterthis public Notice is given who shall befound within the enemies lines at York,if the place falls into our hands, will beinstantly Hanged.”26 He made good onthe promise, hanging every deserter onthe spot the day after he tookYorktown.27

Colonel John Laurance, the sec-ond Judge Advocate General of theArmy, personally prosecuted some ofthe most important military cases of theRevolutionary War, including the trialof Major General Benedict Arnold, in1779, for permitting a vessel to leave anenemy port, closing the shops in Phila-delphia, and using public wagons forhis own private business. His convic-tion and subsequent reprimand by Gen-eral Washington embittered him, andappear to have contributed to his infa-mous acts of treason in 1780.28 Colonel

Laurance also acted as recorder to aboard of officers which recommend thatMajor John Andre, Adjutant General ofthe British Army, be executed as a spyfor sneaking behind the lines in civilianclothes and conspiring with Arnold forthe surrender of West Point.29

Laurance was followed as JudgeAdvocate General by his deputy, Colo-nel Thomas Edwards, who gained no-toriety in 1783 as a victim of the acceptedand rather unsubtle command influenceof the day. This occurred when a cer-tain Major Reid was acquitted at a court-martial prosecuted by Edwards oncharges of disobedience of orders andunmilitary conduct towards BrigadierGeneral Hasen. After the trial, GeneralHasen preferred charges against Colo-nel Edwards for neglect, incompetence,and partiality toward the accused in theprosecution. General Washington re-ferred the matter to a board of officers,which found the charges unsupportedby the evidence, and spared ColonelEdwards conviction and punishment.Edwards was the last Judge AdvocateGeneral of the Continental Army.30

Altogether, 15 judge advocatesserved during the Revolutionary War.31

Most held important leadership posi-tions in the Army in addition to theirlegal duties, and several went on to dis-tinguished careers after the War. Prob-ably the most notable of these was Cap-tain John Marshall, who served directlyunder General Washington at ValleyForge as Deputy Judge Advocate in theArmy. He also commanded troops atthe battles of Brandywine, Germantown,and Monmouth.32 Marshall went on toserve for two years as Secretary of Stateand 34 years as Chief Justice of theUnited States Supreme Court, authoringmany of the Court’s pivotal early deci-sions. A contemporary’s words are aharbinger of his juridical greatness:

[H]is capacity was held in suchestimation by many of hisbrother officers, that in manydisputes...he was constantlychosen arbiter; and that officers,irritated by differences or ani-mated by debate, often submit-ted the contested points to hisjudgment, which being given in

writing, and accompanied...bysound reason in support of hisdecision, obtained general ac-quiescence.33

As the Revolutionary War drewto a close, the Continental Army waslargely disbanded, and the remainingArmy was reduced to one 700-man regi-ment. Not surprisingly, no Judge Ad-vocate General was appointed afterColonel Edwards until 1794, when Cap-tain Campbell Smith was appointed“Judge Marshal and Advocate General”of the reorganized Army, then knownas the “Legion of the United States.”On 2 June 1797, his title changed toJudge Advocate of the Army, reflect-ing another Army reorganization. Fi-nally, in 1802, the office of the JudgeAdvocate of the Army was abolishedby Congress and did not reemerge until1849.34

1802-1849: The Adjutant Gen-eral Takes The Reins. During theinterim years, the Adjutant General ofthe Army assumed the functions of theJudge Advocate General. However,judge advocates did not disappear al-together. They were appointed fromtime to time, as needed, to Army divi-sions, and on an ad hoc basis from theline to serve at courts-martial.35 In anodd turn of events, the Adjutant Gen-eral himself, Colonel Roger Jones, wascourt-martialed in 1830. During a dis-agreement with Army Chief of StaffAlexander Macomb, Colonel Jonesshouted at the General: “I defy you, sir;I defy you!” He was convicted and re-ceived a reprimand, but was allowed toremain Adjutant General of the Armyfor an additional 22 years.36 ColonelJones went on to publish many influen-tial Army regulations describing theduties of judge advocates and outlin-ing various court-martial procedures.37

Another unusual case from this periodinvolved General Winfield Scott, thefamous field commander during theMexican-American War. Scott, whowas also a lawyer and member of theVirginia bar, believed that one of hissubordinates, Major General GideonPillow, had published a libelous accountof his 1846-47 campaigns in Mexico. In


a display of command influence unusualeven by 19th Century standards, Scottpreferred the charges, convened thecourt of inquiry, and personally actedas lead prosecutor! However, even withthe skillful assistance of the ActingJudge Advocate of the Army38 GeneralPillow was acquitted.39

The Civil War And Reconstruc-tion - A Time Of Growth. Congressreestablished the office of Judge Ad-vocate of the Army on 2 March 1849,and Brevet Major John F. Lee occupiedthe post until 1862.40 Lee, a West Pointtrained ordinance officer and decoratedwar hero, had studied law, but nevercompleted his training. Nevertheless,he was so well known in the Army forhis knowledge of military law and skillas a judge advocate that Congress re-established the office specifically toprocure his permanent assignment toreview courts-martial records.41 By1861, Lee reviewed these for an Armyof over 16,000 troops, and initiated thepractice of issuing legal opinions onsome non-criminal subjects as well.42

After the outbreak of war andPresident Lincoln’s call for nationalmobilization, massive numbers of newrecruits entered the service, and theArmy’s legal department had to expand.

Ultimately, over two million men servedin the Union Army, and by War’s end,over 100,000 of them had been court-martialed.43 As one might guess, thejudge advocate ranks swelled alongwith those of the Army. On 17 July 1862,Congress abolished Lee’s position, andreinstated the office of the Judge Ad-vocate General of the Army. Major Leewas not invited to take the job–partlybecause he was not a lawyer, but par-ticularly because he had previouslydeclared the trial of civilians by “mili-tary commissions” to be unconstitu-tional. President Lincoln thought oth-erwise. After heading the Departmentfor thirteen years, Lee retired rather thanreturn to duties as an ordinance of-ficer.44

Congress also authorized the ap-pointment of thirty-three judge advo-cates in the rank of major. Most wereassigned to armies in the field, but sevenor eight were kept at Headquarters inWashington.45 Of course, thirty-threeJAGs did not try 100,000 courts-martial.In the vast majority of routine and mi-nor cases the earlier practice of appoint-ing line officers to act as ad hoc judgeadvocates continued.46 Procedurally,little had changed since the Revolution-ary War,47 but Congress significantlyexpanded the supervisory duties of the

Judge Advocate General. Field judgeadvocates still worked for field com-manders, but the law now specified thatthey did so under the direction of theJudge Advocate General.48 This “tech-nical channel” for transmitting profes-sional guidance and assistance outsideof the normal chain of command is stillan important part of the way we do busi-ness today. Congress also establishedthe Bureau of Military Justice, an im-portant forerunner of today’s serviceappellate courts.49

Brevet Major General Joseph Holtwas Judge Advocate General during theCivil War and for 10 years thereafter.50

President Lincoln handpicked Holt be-cause he was a powerful Washingtoninsider at the time of his appointment.Many were criticizing Lincoln’s attemptto expand the jurisdiction of militarycourts to try civilians suspected of dis-loyalty. Lincoln wanted unfetteredpower to arrest, imprison, and try suchpersons in front of military commis-sions, and to deny the defendants theright of habeas corpus. He ordered Holtto defend the jurisdiction of these com-missions, which Holt did successfully,convincing the Supreme Court not toreview such cases. After the War, theCourt revisited the issue in Ex ParteMilligan,51 and declared the peacetimeuse of military commissions unconsti-tutional.52 General Holt also person-ally prosecuted the most importantcases of his day, including Henry Wirz,the notorious commandant of theAndersonville prisoner-of-war camp,and the Lincoln assassination conspira-tors.53

The Civil War also produced theonly judge advocate ever awarded theMedal of Honor, Major Wells H.Blodgett. As in the Revolutionary War,judge advocates actively participatedin battle. Blodgett received the nation’shighest award for valor by approach-ing enemy lines on his own initiative,and “with a single orderly,” capturingan eight-man armed picket.54 Anothernotable Civil War judge advocate, JohnA. Bingham, left his seat in Congress toenter the service. He was a key pros-ecutor in the Lincoln assassination trial,and later returned to Congress and

A court-martial during the Civil War (Concord, New Hampshire).


authored the Fourteenth Amendment.55

In 1874, the Articles of War wereoverhauled. A number of proceduralprotections for the accused were addedand the precursor to the modern sum-mary court-martial was created: a newkind of wartime court-martial, the “fieldofficer court,” which was empoweredto try minor offenses previously triedby regimental and garrison courts.56

In an infamous case reminiscentof the Colonel Roger Jones trial, Briga-dier General David G. Swaim, Judge Ad-vocate General from 1881 to 1894, wascourt-martialed while in office. In 1884,the Secretary of War ordered his trialfor financial improprieties. After a 52-day trial, he was found guilty, and sen-tenced to be suspended from rank andduty for twelve years, but he was notremoved from office.57 This left an Act-ing Judge Advocate General, ColonelGuido Norman Lieber, in place for overten years. Finally, Swaim was allowedto retire, and Lieber was promoted andappointed Judge Advocate Generalfrom 1895-1901. General Lieber, a heroof the Civil War, served as a judge ad-vocate for over 40 years, including six-teen as head of the Department. He re-mains the longest serving Judge Ad-vocate General, and is credited with re-peatedly saving the JAG Departmentfrom the Congressional ax during thisperiod of relative military calm.58

World War I - The Seeds OfChange. In 1917, large numbers ofAmericans once again mobilized for war,this time on distant shores. The size ofthe force grew exponentially and rap-idly, and by 11 November 1918, over 4.2million Americans had served in “TheGreat War.”59 The JAG Departmentgrew at a similar pace to meet the needsof this unprecedented armed force.When America entered the war on 6April 1917, there were seventeen judgeadvocates on active duty. Just nine-teen months later, when the War ended,that number had reached 426.60 Thisrapid expansion brought a number ofprominent civilian attorneys into theDepartment. Among these were MajorFelix Frankfurter, the Harvard LawSchool professor who later became anoted Supreme Court justice; Colonel

Edmund Morgan, also of Harvard, whothirty years later drafted the UCMJ; andNorthwestern Law School dean John H.Wigmore, the well-known evidence ex-pert, who later oversaw two major re-writes of the Manual for Courts-Mar-tial.61

Military justice was still the judgeadvocate’s primary duty, but there wassubstantial growth in non-criminal prac-tice as well. Commanders increasinglyasked their JAGs for advice on admin-istrative law matters, contracts, interna-tional law, and the law of war. WorldWar I judge advocates also recognizedthe prejudicial legal impact of overseasduty on the average soldier, and re-sponded by starting the first formal le-gal assistance programs. With each newduty, the judge advocate became moreintegrated into the command staff, andthe need for a permanent cadre of mili-tary legal officers became apparent. Inkeeping with his larger Department andrapidly expanding duties, the JudgeAdvocate General was also given therank of major general in 1917.62

After the War, major changes be-gan to take shape in military law andpractice. The Articles of War were de-bated and amended by Congress in1920. The new Articles gave servicemembers many additional rights andstarted a gradual trend toward reduc-ing command influence and making themilitary justice system look and oper-ate more like its civilian counterpart.These changes included: 1) the require-ment for a pretrial hearing and “staffjudge advocate”63 recommendationbefore a case could be referred to a gen-eral court-martial, 2) the appointment ofa lawyer from the JAG Department toact as “law member” on every generalcourt-martial,64 3) an appointed defensecounsel in general and special courts-martial, and 4) the establishment of aservice appellate court known as the“Board of Review.” These changesstarted a trend away from a discipline-centered system and toward a more jus-tice-centered one that led to the birth ofthe UCMJ three decades later. Theseeds of this change germinated in anideological schism between none otherthan the Judge Advocate General, Ma-jor General Enoch H. Crowder (1911-

1923), and his deputy, Brigadier Gen-eral Samuel T. Ansell, who was ActingJudge Advocate General of the Armyduring WW I.65

The debate started in October1917, when Ansell learned that a num-ber of court-martial sentences, includ-ing some high-profile death sentences,had been executed without benefit of alegal review by his office. The mostnotorious of these incidents involvedthe mass trial of 63 African-Americansoldiers for murders allegedly commit-ted by them during an August 1917 riotin Houston, Texas. The morning afterthe trial, without appeal or opportunityto seek clemency, thirteen of the menwere summarily hanged. This sentAnsell into a rage, and he began to pub-licly characterize the military justice sys-tem as “un-American,” “unconstitu-tional,” and “lawless.”66 GeneralCrowder, who had been temporarily ap-pointed Provost Marshal General andplaced in charge of the Selective Ser-vice System, became concerned aboutAnsell’s public criticizisms, and re-turned to his Judge Advocate Generalbillet to defend the system. Chief JudgeCox sums up the heart of the Ansell-Crowder debate nicely:

The constitutional questionwhich emerged was whetherCongress could establish a mili-tary justice system in which thecommander imposed punish-ment without regard for rules oflaw. In other words, should thewill of the commander or the ruleof law reign supreme in theAmerican military justice sys-tem?67

General Ansell lost the debate andwas eventually forced to resign,68 buthe did not give up his fight to changethe system. He continued to lobbyCongress, and was eventually asked toredraft the Articles of War. His draftwas essentially an early version of theUCMJ, but it was considered too radi-cal for its time, and only a few of thereforms were adopted, as discussedabove, in the 1920 amendments to theArticles of War.69 However, GeneralAnsell lived until 1954, and eventually


saw his reforms carried out by one ofhis former JAG protégés, ProfessorEdmund Morgan. Ironically, Morganwas commissioned by Congress to draftthe UCMJ, and Ansell’s original 1920sera proposal was Morgan’s model forthe new Code.70 Samuel Ansell is nowrecognized as the “father of modernAmerican military law.”71 In many re-spects he was not unlike his contempo-rary, Brigadier General William “Billy”Mitchell, now recognized as the vision-ary father of modern air power. Bothmen were a generation ahead of theirtime, and both spoke out publicly forreform. In General Mitchell’s casethough, the result was his now infamouscourt-martial.

In 1925, Brigadier General BillyMitchell was a nationally known WW Ihero, and an outspoken proponent ofair power. As Assistant Chief of theArmy Air Corps, he arranged demon-strations of the effectiveness of airpower, including the ability to sink abattleship from the air. When thesedemonstrations failed to rally the sup-port for his views, he started to speakout about the failure of his superiors to

accept air power’s usefulness. In April1925, he was posted to a dead-end jobin Texas and reduced to his permanentgrade of Colonel, but he continued toagitate for reform. Things came to ahead in September 1925, when he held apress conference in the wake of twohighly publicized air disasters and pub-licly accused the Army and Navy De-partments of “incompetency, criminalnegligence, and almost treasonable ad-ministration of our national defense.”72

Mitchell was recalled to Washing-ton and court-martialed for insubordi-nation, conduct prejudicial to good or-der and discipline, and bringing dis-credit on the War Department.Mitchell’s defense was the truth of hisstatements, and he put on a parade ofair power giants to back him up, includ-ing future 5-Star General Henry. H.“Hap” Arnold, who testified, in morediplomatic terms, that Mitchell’s state-ments were correct. The prosecutor wasMajor Allen Gullion, later The JudgeAdvocate General (1937-1941). Hecalled General Mitchell a “flamboyantcharlatan” whose ideas were “wildnonfeasible schemes.” Mitchell was

convicted and suspended from rank,command, and duty for five years. Dis-heartened, he resigned from the serviceand died 10 years later, before his vi-sions for the full exploitation of airpower became reality.73

Except for the Billy Mitchell affair,the interwar period was a relativelyquiet time for the JAG Department.After the post-WW I drawdown, theArmy’s strength averaged about 150,000for the next twenty years, but the JAGDepartment was proportionately largerthan it had ever been, averaging around120 full-time active duty judge advo-cates.74 The larger Department was jus-tified by the greater role carved out forJAGs under the 1920 Articles of Warand an increasing reliance on JAGs bycommanders. During this period, re-quests for legal opinions on civil lawmatters, such as interpretation and con-struction of Army regulations, increaseddramatically and judge advocates be-came more involved in internal Armyoperations.75

A final point of interest for thisperiod was the advent of the title “TheJudge Advocate General.” It cameabout when the office was styled assuch in a general order issued by theWar Department on 31 January 1924.The title and the acronym “TJAG”stuck, and have remained a part of ourtradition ever since.76

World War II And Beyond � TheBirth Of Military Justice. The sizeand scope of the Second World Wardwarfed all other wars before and after.Between 1941 and 1945, over sixteenmillion American men and womenserved in the Untied States military, andthe Judge Advocate General’s Depart-ment grew rapidly along with the force.By 1945 there were over 3,500 ArmyJAGs on active duty, under the super-vision of Major General Myron C.Cramer, TJAG from 1941 to 1945.77 TheWar was big business, and the JAGDepartment greatly expanded the scopeof its operations to handle the needs ofits clients. JAG headquarters was or-ganized into three main branches: Mili-tary Justice, Civil Matters, and WarCrimes. There was also a separate in-ternational law division, and an admin-The court-martial of then-Colonel William (Billy) Mitchell, 1925.


istrative division to manage theDepartment’s personnel. The Civil Mat-ters Branch had divisions for contracts,patents, taxes, litigation, claims, and le-gal assistance, among others. The Mili-tary Justice Branch included six Boardsof Review; necessary to satisfy the re-quirements for appellate review ofcourts-martial mandated by the 1920Articles of War.78

The first seeds of the Air ForceJudge Advocate General’s Departmentwere sown during this period as well.In March 1942, several hundred judgeadvocates were assigned to the Officeof the Air Judge Advocate of the Army,led by Brigadier General Lawrence H.Hedrick. This separate group of “airlawyers” were managed and assignedby the Air Corps, but the Army TJAGstill maintained overall supervisory re-sponsibility for all Army legal functions.By 1945, there were nearly 1500 AirCorps JAGs—nearly half of all the law-yers in the Army. Many of them wouldlater form the cadre of the Air ForceJudge Advocate General’s Depart-ment.79

The War attracted a variety of law-yers to the JAG profession. With somany new JAGs entering active duty,from such diverse backgrounds, train-ing became a priority, and on 9 Febru-ary 1942 the forerunner of today’s mod-ern JAG school opened at the Univer-sity of Michigan Law School, in AnnArbor. During the four years of its ex-istence, the school trained over 2,500JAGs. Subjects included military jus-tice, claims, contracts, law of war, tax,constitutional law, military reservations,and military government. Judge advo-cates learned “soldiering” as well, in-cluding military tactics, map reading,chemical warfare, staff functions, andweapons training.80

In the field, judge advocates werefast becoming true general practitioners,giving commanders a full range of civil,criminal, and international legal advice.Providing legal assistance to individualsoldiers and airmen was also a priority.Armed with the new Soldiers’ and Sail-ors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940, JAGs as-sisted over eight million military mem-bers during the War.81 Despite an ever-expanding practice, military justice still

occupied the lion’s share of the judgeadvocate time. During the War, overtwo million American military memberswere tried by court-martial, and over80,000 were convicted at general courts-martial—a staggering average of 60general court-martial convictions forevery day of the war.82

A number of judge advocates alsodistinguished themselves in WW IIcombat, most notably First LieutenantSamuel Spitzer. On 31 July 1944, hewalked openly, without a weapon, downthe center of a Nazi-occupied Frenchtown calling out in German that the townwas surrounded by American forcesand demanding surrender. His bluffworked; 508 German soldiers laid downtheir weapons and surrendered to hisunit. For his extraordinary courage inthe face of the enemy he was awardedthe Silver Star.83

Judge Advocates also served im-portant functions in the post-Wargovernments of occupied Germany andJapan. In Germany, 60 JAGs were de-tailed to investigate and prosecute warcrimes. Between 1945 and 1948, JAGsprosecuted 1,672 war criminals in frontof military commissions and militarygovernment courts. They obtained1,416 convictions, and successfullyobtained the death penalty in 244 cases.The best-known war crimes trial was, ofcourse, the 1945-46 “Nuremberg Trial,”in which twenty-four high-ranking Na-zis were tried for “crimes against hu-manity and peace.” U.S. Supreme CourtJustice Robert H. Jackson led the pros-ecution team, and one of his principleassistants was Colonel Robert Story, anAir Corps JAG. The trial lasted ninemonths and resulted in twenty-one con-victions. Ten of the defendants, includ-ing the notorious Hermann Goering,were sentenced to death.84

After the War, many military mem-bers, including some judge advocates,expressed dissatisfaction with their ex-periences under the military justice sys-tem, which was widely viewed as un-fair, arbitrary, and subject to substan-tial command influence.85 One suchjudge advocate, Ernest W. Gibson, wholater served as governor of Maine, de-scribed his experiences:

I was dismissed as a Law Officer

because...a man wasacquitted...when the Command-ing General wanted him con-victed—yet the evidence didn’twarrant it. I was called down andtold that if I didn’t convict in agreater number of cases, I wouldbe marked down in my EfficiencyRating; and I squared off andsaid that wasn’t my conceptionof justice and that they had bet-ter remove me, which was doneforthwith.86

Congressional hearings between1948 and 1950 led to sweeping reformsof the military justice system. Theseculminated in passage of the MilitaryJustice Act of 1950,87 giving us themodern, justice-based Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice. The Code took effecton 5 May 1951, creating one system ofjustice for all U.S. service members.

Conclusion � Remembering OurRoots. Thus, 176 years after WilliamTudor became the first American judgeadvocate, we had come full circle. Wehad a new armed force—an Air Force,charged with marshaling and exploitinga technology not yet 50 years old; anew criminal code, the UCMJ, which laiddown substantially the same crimes,punishments, and trial procedures forall services members; and a new JudgeAdvocate General’s Department. As wemove forward into the next millennium,let us not forget our historic roots, ourrich and sometimes colorful history, andthe Army officers who created and nur-tured the profession of the Americanmilitary lawyer—the judge advocate.

1 HENRY HITCHCOCK AND M.A. DEWOLFE HOWE,ED., MARCHING WITH SHERMAN, PASSAGES FROM

THE LETTERS AND CAMPAIGN DIARIES OF HENRY

HITCHCOCK, MAJOR AND ASSISTANT ADJUTANT GENERAL

OF VOLUNTEERS, NOVEMBER 1864—MAY 1865 7(1927, 1995 Reprint).2 Id. at pages 16, 19-20. Historically, therewas a close (albeit, not always cordial)relationship between the Adjutant General andJudge Advocate General. Field adjutants ofthis period were staff officers, who acted asaides-de-camp, assisting commanders withadministrative matters.3 Id. at page 5. Later in life, he served asprofessor and dean of faculty at St. Louis LawSchool and as a founder and president of theAmerican Bar Association.


4 Id. at pages 9-10.5 Id. at page vi; and 2 MEMOIRS OF GENERAL

WILLIAM T. SHERMAN 187 (1875, 1984 DeCaporeprint).6 As we are the progeny of the U.S. Army, oursurvey will be limited to the JAGs of thatservice branch.7 THE ARMY LAWYER: A HISTORY OF THE JUDGE

ADVOCATE GENERAL’ S CORPS, 1775-1975, 7-11(1975) [hereinafter THE ARMY LAWYER].8 Matthews, Legal Aspects of Military Servicein Ancient Mesopotamia, 94 MIL. L. REV. 135(1981).9 WILLIAM WINTHROP, MILITARY LAW AND PRECEDENTS

17, 45 (2d ed. 1896, 1920 reprint). Thecrimes in these early armies were familiarones: desertion, mutiny, cowardice, violencetowards superiors, and theft of armaments.Many of the punishments, including maiming,exposure to the elements, and decimation,were extreme by today’s standards, but others,such as capital punishment and dishonorabledischarge, are still in use today.10 DAVID A. SCHLUETER, MILITARY CRIMINAL JUSTICE

§ 1-4 at 15-16 (4th ed. Supp. 1998).11 1 FRANCIS A. GILLIGAN & FREDRIC I. LEDERER,COURT-MARTIAL PROCEDURE § 1-30.00 at 5 (1st

ed. Supp. 1998). There has recently beensome debate over the true origins of the BritishArticles of War and the English court-martial.See, e.g., Lt. Col. William R. Hagan,Overlooked Textbooks Jettison Some DurableMilitary Law Legends, 113 MIL. L. REV. 163,165 and 174-200 (1986).12 Id. § 1-42.00 at page 10; and WINTHROP

supra note 9, at page 903. His brief enactment(a single page) was issued to regulate the troopstraveling to Jerusalem during the ThirdCrusade, and dealt primarily with the crimesof homicide, assault, and robbery.13 WINTHROP supra note 9, at pages 18-21.Articles of War were issued by Richard II(1385), Henry V (ca. 1413-22), Henry VII(ca. 1485-1509), Henry VIII (ca. 1509-47),Charles I (1629 and 1639), Charles II (1662-3, 1666, and 1672), and James II (1685 and1688). In 1689, Parliament passed the firstMutiny Act, and British military law began tomigrate toward a statutory system, but theArticles of War continued to be issued by royaldecree until they were replaced by statutes in1879.14 Id. at page 931.15 Id. at pages 21-23.16 Id. at page 179.17 Id. at page 180. The American Articles ofWar were amended in 1776 to eliminate allreferences to the King and substituted therefore“the United States of America.”18 THE ARMY LAWYER, supra note 7, at page 11.In arguing for this approach, John Adamscommented that the British and Romansystems “had carried two empires to the headof mankind” and that “it would be vain for usto seek in our own invention . . . for a morecomplete system of military discipline.”19 A brevet commission gave a military officerhigher nominal rank than that for which hereceived pay. The practice was common inthe 18th and 19th centuries, but has since beendiscontinued in the U.S.

20 THE ARMY LAWYER, supra note 7, at page 11.The new title was given to the office on 10August 1776.21 William F. Fratcher, History of the JudgeAdvocate General’s Corps, United StatesArmy, 4 MIL. L. REV. 89, 90 (1959).22 Id. at page 91.23 WINTHROP supra note 9, at pages 186-199.24 [Emphasis added] THE ARMY LAWYER, supranote 7, at pages 29, 90.25 The Recreated 2nd North Carolina Regimentof the Continental Line, The Orderly Book ofJacob Turner: Crimes and Punishments inthe Continental Army of 1777 & 1778 (visitedMar. 9, 1999) <http://web. infoave.net/~rblevins/18THCRIM.htm>.26 BURKE DAVIS, THE CAMPAIGN THAT WON AMERICA,THE STORY OF YORKTOWN 205 (1970).27 Id. at pages 280-281. On the same day;however, in a show of unprecedented mercy,he released all other prisoners from hisstockades, regardless of offense.28 Fratcher supra note 21, at page 91.29 Id. This trial is the subject of the ArmyJAG Corps’ Regimental Print, entitled “You,Sir, Are a Spy!”30 THE ARMY LAWYER, supra note 7, at pages21-22.31 Id. at page 19.32 Id. at page 23-24.33 Id. at page 24.34 Id. at pages 26-27; and see also DIGEST OF

OPINIONS: THE JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL OF THE

ARMED FORCES, 1967-1968, v (1968).35 Id. at page 27.36 Id. at pages 38-40.37 Id. at page 39.38 Id. at page 40. During this period, theAdjutant General of the Army typicallyappointed an “Acting Judge Advocate of theArmy” to assist with the administration oflegal functions at Army Headquarters.39 Id. at pages 40-41.40 DIGEST OF OPINIONS, supra note 31, at page v;and THE ARMY LAWYER, supra note 6, at page42-43. Lee was the grandson of Richard HenryLee, President of the Continental Congressof 1776.41 THE ARMY LAWYER, supra note 7, at page 43.42 Id. at page 49.43 THOMAS P. LOWRY, M.D., TARNISHED EAGLES:THE COURT-MARTIAL OF FIFTY UNION COLONELS AND

LIEUTENANT COLONELS, xiii (1997).44 THE ARMY LAWYER, supra note 7, at page 47.45 Id. at page 54.46 Id.47 SCHLUETER supra note 12, § 1-6(B) at pages29-30.48 THE ARMY LAWYER, supra note 7, at pages50-51.49 Id. at page 51.50 DIGEST OF OPINIONS, supra note 31, at page v.51 71 U.S. 2 (1866).52 Id.; and THE ARMY LAWYER, supra note 7, atpages 52-53.53 Id.54 Id. at page 56.55 Id. at pages 54-55.56 SCHLUETER supra note 12, § 1-6(B) at pages31-32.57 THE ARMY LAWYER, supra note 7, at pages

79-83. Swaim spent the rest of his life tryingin vain to clear his name.58 Id. at pages 85-86.59 Id. at page 122.60 Id. at page 116.61 Id. at page 120.62 Id. at page 116.63 Id. at pages 136-137. This was the firstofficial use of the title “staff judge advocate.”64 Id. This was a major change from theformer practice of appointing line officers,many of whom were not lawyers, to act asjudge advocates at general courts-martial. Thelaw member made binding evidentiary rulingsand acted in many other respects like amilitary judge, but was also a voting memberof the panel.65 Hon. Walter T. Cox III, The Army and theConstitution, 118 MIL L. REV. 1, 10. (1986).General Crowder had been detailed as ProvostMarshal General so he could overseeimplementation of the Selective Service Actduring the War.66 Id. [citing Ansell, Military Justice, 5 CORNELL

L.Q. 1 (1919).]67 Id. at page 10.68 THE ARMY LAWYER, supra note 7, at page115.69 Id. at pages 124-38.70 Id. at pages 198-99.71 Cox, supra note 67, at page 9.72 THE ARMY LAWYER, supra note 7, at pages143-46.73 Id.74 Id. at pages 146-58.75 Id. at pages 152-53.76 Id. at page 139.77 Id. at page 186; and Notes from the Field:Judge Advocate “Firsts,” THE ARMY LAWYER,37 (July 1997). This number includes 1500Army Air Corps JAGs.78 Id. at page 168.79 Id. at page 198; and Notes from the Field,note 79 supra.80 Id. at pages 186-187.81 Id. at page 185.82 Cox, supra note 67, at page 11.83 Notes from the Field, note 79 supra, atpages 38-39.84 THE ARMY LAWYER, supra note 7, at pages181-84; TELFORD TAYLOR, THE ANATOMY OF THE

NUREMBERG TRIAL , A PERSONAL MEMOIR 56(1992); and see generally FRANK M. BUSCHER,THE U.S. WAR CRIMES TRIAL PROGRAM IN GERMANY,1946-1955 (1989).85 Cox, supra note 67, at page 11.86 Id. quoting Willis, The United States Courtof Military Appeals: Its Origin, Operation andFuture, 55 MIL. L. REV. 39, 39 note 3 (1972).87 10 U.S.C. §§ 801-940, 5 May 1950. Seealso Alich, Sharpen the Sword of MilitaryJustice, this edition of THE REPORTER.


TThe first recorded instance of a request for a separateinsignia for Air Force Judge Advocates is a21 September 1961 letter from then-First Lieutenant Ed-

ward S. Cogan to Major General Albert M. Kuhfeld, the JudgeAdvocate General of the Air Force at the time. After first not-ing that he favored proficiency pay for judge advocates, FirstLieutenant Cogan wrote:

The purpose of this letter, however, is to plead for some-thing more fundamental and, I believe, essential. Theuniform of the USAF lawyer, unlike that of the USAFdoctor, dentist, veterinarian, chaplain, rated individuals,and Army lawyer, bears no indicia of his profession. Ourtraining is something of which we are no less proud thanare other military personnel who are entitled to the hall-marks of their trade. Why, then, can’t we be authorizedto wear some insignia—a crossed pen and sword, or anemblem indicating Justice and her scales—reflecting toeveryone that we are members of a time-honored profes-sion?

General Kuhfeld replied in the negative, noting: “Thewearing of distinctive emblems would, in our case, be in oppo-sition to our position [as part] of the management team of theAir Force.”

General Kuhfeld also noted, “It is most gratifying thatyou felt free to send your candid opinions directly to me.”Undaunted, the lieutenant wrote again and pointed out toGeneral Kuhfeld, “Your primary thesis is that the wearing of aspecial emblem would be in opposition to our position as partof the management team of the Air Force. This argument ap-pears to be, in essence, an exercise in semantics.”

General Kuhfeld again responded to Lieutenant Coganstating, “As we previously pointed out, we are line officers ofthe Air Force, not a separate corps . . . You mention that an‘overwhelming majority’ of our Air Force judge advocatesshare your views; while this may be true, we have not beenaware of it nor have we found that the absence of an insigniaacted to the detriment of the Judge Advocate General’s De-partment.”

General Kuhfeld retired in September 1964. He never ap-proved of a separate insignia for judge advocates. His suc-cessor, Maj Gen Robert W. Manss also resisted the idea of adistinctive insignia for judge advocates, noting that “I felt

A Sign of the

JAGMR. GARY NULL

The following article was originally published in THE REPORTER, Vol.22,No.1 at 22, March 1995.

that it wasn’t going to help the Department or the people in itby hanging another piece of hardware on their uniform. I thinkthat the way you establish a reputation and gain respect andprestige is by your work.”

But in August 1965 the Secretary of the Air Force, Eu-gene M. Zuckert, received a letter from L. Mendal Rivers, Chair-man of the House Armed Services Committee. Chairman Riv-ers wrote:

I know that from time to time suggestions havebeen made to you that a distinctive insignia beinitiated for Judge Advocates on active duty withthe USAF. While I recognize that the Air Forcedoes not look with favor upon separate identitiesfor its personnel, nevertheless I do call your atten-tion to the fact that physicians, nurses, chaplains,some 16 different types of aviators, missilemen, theAir Police, the Air Force Recruiting Service, andthe Joint Chiefs of Staff insignia are authorized.Why not one for Judge Advocates?

Meanwhile, in Aerospace Defense Command [now SpaceCommand] the Staff Judge Advocate, Brigadier General Mar-tin Menter, had sent out a questionnaire to his subordinatejudge advocates. He recalled: “I sent out a memorandum to allthe JAs under the ADC, asking the recipient to fill out a pro-vided form and to put down what they felt was necessary forthe retention of judge advocates in the Air Force. They wereinstructed not to sign their name. I got the reactions and tabu-lated them.”

With the results of the survey in hand, General Menterwent to Washington to speak with General Manss. He showedthe results of the survey to General Manss and stated a judgeadvocate insignia would “visually ... reflect that he is the legaladvisor, would enhance JAG status, morale and, I would hope,consequently, JAG retentions. When he makes an observa-tion as to the law his view more likely would not be challengedand possibly overcome by the view of a non-attorney with ahigher rank. Thus, the JAG function and the Air Force wouldbenefit.’’

Faced with this pressure from above and below, GeneralManss reconsidered his position against a judge advocateinsignia and, on 6 October 1967, sent a letter to the USAFUniform Board stating:


A

Unit coins have been in use by elite units of the Americanmilitary establishment for many years. Unit coins were first used as a form

of identification by unit members and later transformed into a game played byunit members using their coins to foster and enhance esprit de corps. A certainfeeling of well being has been associated with owning one’s organization cointhrough all of life’s challenges and complications.

The coin is a method by which members of the Judge Advocate General’sDepartment can maximize esprit de corps and generate a common bond amongall of its members. Every year since its minting, hundreds of visitors to the JAGSchool have obtained the JAG coin. A special anniversary edition of the coinhas also been recently minted.

The idea of the coin was first conceived during the Air Force Officer Orienta-tion Course in September 1995 at the Gunter-Maxwell Annex by then-First LtCharles Plummer. The idea was inspired and nurtured by SSgt Lisa Rios, anOfficer Training School instructor at the course. Later that year, Lt Plummer andthen- Capt Robert Howell finalized a proposed design of the coin. The coin wasapproved by the Air Force Judge Advocate General School Commandant, Colo-nel Jack Rives. The JAG Department coin became a reality in January 1996.

The front of the coin displays the authorized crest of the Judge AdvocateGeneral’s Department while the reverse shows the original symbol of the ArmyAir Corps, the first symbol of the modern Air Force.

(From AFJAGS records and consultation with Captain Christopher Plummer)

TJAGD Coin

Twenty Three Years Later...

A separate badge for paralegals was originally contem-plated in 1969 during the PACAF judge advocate/NCOIC conference. Then-Master Sergeant Bill Whalen

(CMSgt, Ret.) was appointed the project officer and entrustedwith developing a distinctive badge that could be worn byparalegals Air Force wide. Once a proposed design was settledupon, General Harold R. Vague, then the PAFAC Staff JudgeAdvocate, sent the proposal to USAF/JA recommending le-gal airmen be allowed wear a badge, citing among other rea-sons, increasing retention of first and second term airmen.Major General James S. Cheney, TJAG and Chief Master Ser-geant Steve Swigonski, the first Special Assistant to the JudgeAdvocate General, supported the proposal and the requestwas submitted to the Uniform Board in May 1971, althoughthe proposed design was different than that submitted byPACAF. The request was promptly disapproved by the AirForce Uniform Board. However, in the same letter disapprov-ing the badge, the Uniform Board delegated to “major com-manders or comparable authority” the ability to authorize twoline nametags. In August 1971, General Cheney authorizedthe wear of two line nametags by legal airman.

Although the possibility of a distinctive badge for parale-gals was occasionally raised over the years following the 1971denial, the paralegal badge was not approved until twenty-three years later. It was approved in June 1994 as part of theAir Force “Year of Training” initiative when functional badgeswere approved for all Air Force career fields. The badge para-legals now proudly wear is similar to the original design pro-posed by PACAF paralegals in 1969.

The insignia consists of the scales of justice with quills andwas taken from the Air Force judge advocate badge. Thescales of justice represent the military legal system, throughwhich the Air Force maintains good order and discipline.Whether a defense paralegal or a member of the base or higherlevel legal office, the scales represent the commitment of theparalegal to the goal of justice in all adverse actions. Thescales also highlight the common critical link between the para-legal and the judge advocate. The quill, while a new additionto the design, has long symbolized the scribe or tools by whichthe written word is produced. The quills are crossed and restunder the base of the scales of justice to symbolize the essen-tial support of the Air Force legal system given by our parale-gal force.

(From records maintained at AFJAGS)

I hereby recommend that a dis-tinctive insignia for Air Forcejudge advocates be adopted. Overthe years there has been consid-erable agitation for a distinctivejudge advocate insignia, princi-pally, although not entirely,among the younger officers. Re-cently, upwards of 30 [percent] ofthe junior judge advocates ...listed this as one of their ‘gripes’and a reason for not thinking seri-ously of a career in the military.They tie the absence of insigniato lack of prestige and/or recog-nition.

General Manss’ recommendation wasadopted and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force,General John P. McConnell, approved a dis-tinctive badge for wear by Air Force judgeadvocates as of 11 December 1967. TheArmy’s Institute of Heraldry, Cameron Sta-tion, Virginia, designed the insignia by usingthe logo of the Air Force JAG Law Review asthe source of the various elements containedin the insignia.


ANNUALJUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL’S

DINING-IN

The custom of Dining-In has its beginnings in the shad- ows of antiquity. Some

authorities contend that Dining-In derives from a Viking traditionof celebrating great battles andfeats of heroes by formal cer-emony. They claim the customwas adopted in early Englishmonasteries, was embraced byearly universities, and laterspread to military units when theOfficer’s Open Mess was estab-lished. Other authorities maintainthat the practice originated amongSaxon nobles of the 10th Century

Some say that when Englandwas the reigning power in India,there was an English Army postwhere Dining-In received its firstimpetus. It seems that the Com-

mander of this Indian Outpost had of-ficers under his command who lived onthe post but were never around for din-ner at the mess hall. The local area wasmuch more interesting than the Officer’sMess and as a result, the Post Com-mander found himself dining alonemany nights. To bring the officers backto the Mess and to create camaraderie,the Post Commander instituted a pro-gram whereby all officers would dineonce a month in the Mess; a full mili-tary ceremony.

The practice of Dining-In in thisCountry probably originated withWashington’s Continentals. However,the Army points with pride to the firstrecorded Dining-In as that conductedby the “Gary Owens” Calvary Regiment.The present program of Dining-In prob-ably had its beginning in the Air Corps

when the late General Hap Arnold usedto hold his famous “Wing Dings.”

In 1988, The Judge Advocate Gen-eral, Major General Keithe E. Nelsonbrought the ancient tradition of Dining-In to the JAG Department. GeneralNelson started what has become an an-nual Mess Dress occasion. In the be-ginning the function was a Dining-In,as it has been most of the 11 years sinceits inception. Occasionally the formalfunction has been a Dining-Out andnon-military guests have been invited.

TJAG Mess Dress events have oc-casionally been the scene of hilarity,alongside tradition and pomp. In March1992 Major General David C. Morehousepresided over his first Dining-In as TheJudge Advocate General, and it trulywas a memorable evening. Attendedby over 160 Air Force judge advocates

Major General Morehouse�s party shirt is revealed during a no-noticeinspection by Colonel Fred Kuhn.


Major General Morehouse salutes the Mess asMr. Vice (then-Captain Bruce Ambrose) watches

in the Washington D.C. area, it was no-table for several reasons. For example,it was the first TJAG Dining-In wherethe President of the Mess and otherdistinguished members at the head tablewere sent to the grog bowl. ColonelFredolin W. Kuhn, then AFLSA/CC,conducted a no-notice uniform inspec-tion, and discovered that GeneralMorehouse was wearing an unautho-rized Korean-tailored tuxedo shirt. Byorder of the Commander and acclama-tion of the mess, General Morehousewas sent to the grog bowl, and an at-mosphere of no-holds-barred fun wasestablished that lasted throughout theevening. During the dessert course,Colonels Raul Barbara and Michael Nyeled Table #13 in an assortment of ribs,jousts, and jokes, mostly directed to-ward the Head Table. Finally, GeneralMorehouse had enough, and with(mostly) feigned exasperation, he de-creed, “Table 13, for various and sun-dry offenses against the Mess, to theGrog Bowl!” To a man and without dis-cussion, those seated at Table #13 allstood, grasped the edge of the table,lifted it high in the air and carried it tothe grog bowl, where they left it to re-

turn to their circle of chairs. The Messroared its approval with the thunder ofrapping spoons. Not to be outdone,General Morehouse immediatelyamended his previous order, and di-

(Story andphotossubmitted byMajor BruceAmbrose, a.k.a.Mister Vice)

rected the men of Table #13 to the grog.So off they marched to the grog bowl,undaunted and basking in the brillianthumor of the moment.

Table #13 in front of grog bowl, and violators saluting the Mess. (left to right) An unidentified Maj, Lt ColDavid Northup, Col Michael Nye, Lt Col Vic Donovan, Maj T.J. Hasty, Col Raul Barbara, Lt Col Rod Wolthoff, Maj WillGunn, Lt Col Jan Faber)


Senior Paralegal Manager toThe Judge Advocate General

Chief Master Sergeant Steve Swigonski, 1970-1972

Steve Swigonski was the first Senior Paralegal Manager to The Judge Advocate General, aposition then entitled Special Assistant to The Judge Advocate General. He was born on 2September 1928 in Benton, Illinois. He enlisted in the U.S. Air Force on 20 February 1948 from hishometown of Benton Illinois. His assignments include; the Office of the Inspector General;Colorado Springs, Colorado; Manston, England; Sewart AFB, Tennessee; HQ 12th Air Force;Waco AFB, Texas; HQ USAFE; Wiesbaden AB, Germany; and the Office of the Staff JudgeAdvocate, Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona. As a member of the NCO Advisory committee at HQUSAFE, he made a study of airmen transient billets at Wiesbaden AB. His recommendationswere implemented. He also prepared a study guide for the 70570 APT. He is one of four NCOswho prepared the first legal career field SKTs. Chief Swigonski is hailed as being instrumental inestablishing the Paralegal Apprentice School that opened at Keesler AFB on 5 January 1972.Selected from a number of outstanding senior NCOs, he was the first to assume the position ofSpecial Assistant to The Judge Advocate General on 3 September 1970. He held this positionuntil his retirement in 1972.

Chief Master Sergeant Billy G. Miller, 1972-1977

Billy G. Miller was born in Wausau, Florida on 9 September 1929 and graduated from ChipleyHigh School in 1947. He received his Bachelor of Science Degree in Education, Social Studiesand History from Florida State University in August 1950. After teaching for a year, he enlistedin the Air Force in 1951. After completing basic training at Lackland AFB, Texas he was assignedto HQ Security Service at Kelly AFB, Texas working in the intelligence career field. Later thatyear, due to humanitarian reasons, Chief Miller was transferred to Tyndall AFB, Florida andassigned to work in the legal office. In April 1954 the Chief was transferred to 20 AF/JA, KadenaAB, Okinawa. After this tour, he again returned to Tyndall AFB, Florida and remained until hewas reassigned in 1961 to Sembach AFB, Germany. The Chief returned to the states in 1964being assigned to Truax Field, Wisconsin until it closed in 1965. Next came Ent AFB, Coloradowhere he stayed until 1970 when Chief Miller again returned to Europe being assigned to LindseyAS, Germany until 1972. While stationed there, the Chief completed the requirements for hisMasters Degree in Education from Ball State University. Chief Miller was selected as the SpecialAssistant to The Judge Advocate General in October 1972, a position he held until his retirementin 1977.

Chief Master Sergeant Thomas R. Castleman,1977-1983

Thomas R. Castelman was born 24 April 1933 in Harriman, Tennessee. He graduated from highschool in 1951 and enlisted in the Air Force. His group was the first to enter and be sworn inunder the new Uniform Code of Military Justice adopted in 1951. After basic training ChiefCastleman went to a specialized course similar to a technical school, in stenography and busi-ness administration held at the University of Alabama. From there he was assigned to a legaloffice in Sondrestrom AB, Greenland. The following year, 1953, Chief Castleman was assignedto Hunter AFB, Georgia. A very short break in service came and then Chief Castleman returnedto active duty and was assigned to McGhee-Tyson AFB, Tennessee; Stewart AFB, New York;and in 1960 he attended Naval Justice School. After receiving legal training, he was assigned toLajes Field, Azores; Kirtland AFB, New Mexico; HQ Air Force Systems Command at AndrewsAFB, Maryland; and HQ PACAF at Hickam AFB, Hawaii. In June 1977, Chief Castleman wasselected to become the third Senior Paralegal Manager to the Judge Advocate General andremained until his retirement in 1983.


Chief Master Sergeant Jerry L. Becker, 1983-1986

Jerry L. Becker was born on 26 September 1942 in Billings, Montana. Chief Becker graduated fromhigh school in 1960 and enlisted in the Air Force on 5 December 1961. He received a Bachelor ofScience Degree in Education from Southern Illinois University in June 1979. Chief Becker com-pleted the Senior NCO Academy and is a graduate from the MAC NCO Academy at Norton AFB,California. He is a graduate of the Naval Justice School. His assignments included Lackland AFB,Texas; Amarillo AFB, Texas; Wiesbaden AB, Germany; F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming; RAF UpperHeyford, England; Izmir, Turkey; Malmstrom AFB, Montana; Keflavik, Iceland; McChord AFB,Washington; Headquarters United States Air Forces in Europe, Ramstein AFB, Germany; andHeadquarters United States Air Force, Washington D.C. Chief Becker was the Special Assistantto The Judge Advocate General from 1983 until 1986 and retired later that year from Lowry AFB,Colorado.

Chief Master Sergeant George K. Moffett, 1986-1991

George K. Moffett was born on 15 September 1941 in New York City, New York. After graduatingfrom high school in 1960, he attended St. Bonaventure University, where he majored in businessadministration. Chief Moffett is a graduate of the Senior NCO Academy and the ADC NCO Acad-emy at Hamilton Air Force Base, California. He is a graduate of Naval Justice School. ChiefMoffett enlisted in the U.S. Air Force on 20 April 1962. His assignments include Lackland AFB,Texas; Cigli AB, Turkey; Whiteman AFB, Missouri; Tan Son Nhut AB, Vietnam; Ent AFB, Colo-rado; Headquarters United States Air Force, Washington D.C.; RAF Upper Heyford, United King-dom and Headquarters PACAF, Hickam AFB, Hawaii. Chief Moffett assumed the position ofSenior Enlisted Advisor to The Judge Advocate General in October 1986. He held this position forthree years until his retirement.

Chief Master Sergeant Kerry L. Miller, 1991-1993

Kerry L. Miller was born in Portland, Oregon on 2 March 1944. He entered the Air Force in June1962 following his graduation from high school. Chief Miller received basic training at LacklandAFB, Texas and was then assigned to Keesler AFB, Mississippi, for Morse Intercept Operator’sTraining School. Upon graduation in February 1963, Chief Miller was assigned to Onna Point,Okinawa, and in 1964 was assigned to Karamursel AS, Turkey. In April 1967, Chief Miller retrainedinto the legal career field and was assigned to his first legal office at Norton AFB, California. Hisfollowing assignments were to: Nakhom Phanom Royal Thai Air Base, Thailand; Richards-GebaurAFB, Missouri; and Incirlik AB, Turkey. He graduated from the Headquarters Command NCOAcademy in 1974. He was then assigned to the 3rd Circuit, Randolph AFB, Texas; Incirlik, Turkey;Ramstein AB, Germany; and 17th Air Force, Sembach AB, Germany. In July 1986 Chief Millerbecame the Senior Paralegal Advisor to the Staff Judge Advocate, Strategic Air Command, OffuttAFB, Nebraska. Chief Miller was then appointed the Senior Paralegal Manager to The JudgeAdvocate General, a position he held until his retirement in 1993.


Chief Master Sergeant Dennis P. Spitz, 1993-1996

Dennis P. Spitz, was born in Jamestown, New York and began his military career with theU.S. Marine Corps in April 1968. He was a distinguished graduate from Naval JusticeSchool. He served with the Marine Corps until April 1971, joined the Air Force in June1971, and entered the JAG Department the same year. He served at MacDill AFB, Florida;Korat Royal Thai Air Forces Base, Thailand; McConnell AFB, Kansas; Hessich-OldendorfAS, Germany; and Hancock Field, New York. While in New York, Chief Spitz completed theTAC East NCO Academy as a distinguished graduate in 1980. He also received an asso-ciate degree in general studies from Columbia College in 1981, as well as an associatedegree in paralegal studies from the Community College of the Air Force. Chief Spitz thenserved at Homestead AF Base, Florida and Langley AFB, Virginia. He was a distinguishedgraduate from the USAF Senior NCO Academy in 1985. Chief Spitz then went to the AirForce Claims and Litigation Staff; Enlisted Training and Manpower; then served as CourtAdministrator; and then as the Command Paralegal Manager of the Air Force Legal Ser-vices Agency, all at Bolling AFB, Washington D.C. In September 1991, Chief Spitz becamethe Command Paralegal Manager at Tactical Air Command and Air Combat Command,Langley AFB, Virginia. Two years later, Chief Spitz was named the Senior Paralegal Man-ager to The Judge Advocate General. He held this position until his retirement in 1996.

Chief Master Sergeant Karen E. Yates-Popwell,1996-1998

Karen E. Yates-Popwell was the first woman to hold the position of Senior ParalegalManager to The Judge Advocate General. Chief Yates-Popwell is from Mesa, Washing-ton. Upon graduation from high school in 1969, she attended Kennewick Business Col-lege. The Chief entered the Air Force in November 1972. Chief Yates-Popwell was sta-tioned at Pease AFB, New Hampshire; Aviano AS, Italy; and Hill AFB, Utah. She thenobtained her Associate Degree from Weber State College, Ogden, Utah. Chief Yates-Popwell was then assigned to HQ USAFE Ramstein AB, Germany; Ankara, Turkey; 17th

AF, and Sembach AB, Germany. From December 1993 to October 1996 she was the Com-mand Paralegal Manager, Headquarters, Air Mobility Command, Scott AFB, Illinois. ChiefYates-Popwell was then appointed as the Senior Paralegal Manager to The Judge Advo-cate General in 1996, a position she held until her retirement in 1998.

Chief Master Sergeant David A. Haskins,1998- Present

David A. Haskins is the first African-American to hold this position. Chief Haskins isoriginally from Roanoke, Virginia. The Chief enlisted in the United States Air Force inAugust 1976, and began his military career as a Medical Administration Specialist, WilfordHall USAF Medical Center, Lackland AFB Texas. He retrained into the Legal Servicescareer field 1980. Chief Haskins’ first paralegal assignment was at Seymour Johnson AFB,North Carolina. He was also stationed HQ TUSLOG, Ankara AS, Turkey and HomesteadAFB, Florida. In 1987, Chief Haskins also obtained a Bachelor of Arts, Criminology, SaintLeo College (Summa Cum Laude), and Associate in Applied Science degree, ParalegalStudies, Community College of the Air Force. Chief Haskins then served at Shaw AFB,South Carolina; and Ramstein AB, Germany. While stationed at Ramstein AB, he obtainedhis Masters Degree, Public Administration, Troy State University. In June 1994, he be-came the Command Paralegal Manager, HQ Air Force Space Command, Peterson AFB,Colorado where he remained until July 1998 when he assumed his present duties as theSenior Paralegal Manager to The Judge Advocate General.


school at Lowry Field, Denver, Colo-rado, to complete a three month clerk-typist course. I believe the classifica-tion technician at San Antonio used myyear of high school typing to place meat Lowry. After graduating from techschool I was sent to Japan Air MaterialArea (JAMA), Tachikawa, Japan, for athree year tour in occupied Japan. Iserved 26 months at JAMA and wasreturned stateside in April 1950, just acouple of months before the Koreanconflict began. While in Japan, I workedas a clerk-typist and supply clerk; mostlytyping requisitions for replacement ofuniform items turned in by enlisted per-sonnel due to wear and tear. That wasback in the days when each enlisted manwas issued his uniforms by the Quar-termaster. Laundry was also free. Aftera year of working in the Quartermasterwarehouse the issuing of uniforms wasplaced in each individual squadron. Iwas reassigned to a squadron supplyroom. After six months in the supply

room, the Squadron Commander as-signed me to the Orderly Room as se-nior clerk-typist and Morning ReportClerk. That remained my duty until myreturn stateside in April 1950.

I was assigned to Turner AFB, Al-bany, Ga. (nearest Base to my home ofrecord) for discharge at the expirationof my three years of service, 18 June1950. Upon arrival at Turner AFB, I wasassigned as a clerk-typist (Army MOS405) to the Base Legal Office. CaptainVincent J. Del Beccaro was Senior Le-gal Officer.

This was my first experience withLegal and I found, to my great satisfac-tion, that I enjoyed working for CaptainBeccaro and the responsibilities he gaveto me. One of the first duties he as-signed was to clean the restrooms. Ihad never seen such dirty commodes.After an attempt to clean what was im-possible, I typed a work order for re-placement and had the Captain sign it.Within three weeks both commodes

were replaced with new ones. Thatproblem solved, I got down to learningthe business of a legal office and by thetime my discharge came around on 18June 1950, I reenlisted for six years, be-cause an authorized position was avail-able for me in the Legal Office.

Not surprisingly, the base officewas dramatically different than legaloffices of today. It had no airconditioner.Heat was provided by a coal furnacethat had to be banked at night and fedcoal in the early morning and during theday. Labor was provided by the en-listed members of the office. There wereno janitors and the enlisted personneldid the mopping, waxing, and dusting.We also cut the grass.

On July 16, 1950, the old Army MOS405 was changed into the Air ForceAFSC 70250, Senior clerk-typist. I wasmarried (had to get the squadroncommander’s written permission first orno separate rations) in November 1950.My self-training into the business of

Typist to Technician

CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT FREDDY W. PAGE, R ETIRED

Then-SSgt Freddy W. Page at the Base LegalOffice, Turner Air Force Base, Georgia (1954)

I was born the day after Christmas, 26 December 1929, in Moultrie,Georgia. Immediately upon graduation from high school, I enlistedin the Army Air Corps on 19 June 1947, at Fort Benning, Georgia. I

traveled from Ft. Benning by train (coal burner) to Indoctrination Divi-sion, Air Training Command, San Antonio, Texas. While in basic training at San Antonio,the Air Force came into its own and I became one of the charter members of the UnitedStates Air Force. After completing 13 weeks of basic training, I was assigned to technical


Turner AFB legal office activi-ties. (clockwise, starting immediatelybelow) Capt Louis V. diDonato; 1st LtWilliam C. O’Kelley; Presenting mili-tary justice training certificate to 1st SgtJ.D. Paul, Capt Horton, the SJA is inthe middle of the stage. MSgt Baker,NCOIC of legal is third from left onstage; 1st Lt Allen L. Zbar.

the legal office was such that by March1951, Captain Beccaro recommended mypromotion to Staff Sergeant, whichcame on April 6, 1951.

In 1952, Captain Holcombe (LegalOfficer) and I were on the Mobility Listfor the Legal Office and were placed onTDY for three months to Misawa AirBase, Japan, supporting the Operation“Fox Peter One.” The 31st Fighter Es-cort Wing, Turner AFB, during the pe-riod from 4 July 1952 through 16 July1952, accomplished the first successfulmass flight of jet fighter aircraft (F-84G,Thunderjets) from the U. S. to Japan, atotal distance of 10,919 miles, utilizingthe inflight refueling operation and is-land hopping. On 23 February 1954, the31st Fighter Escort Wing received thefirst Air Force Outstanding Unit Awardfor that operation and CaptainHolcombe and I, being part of that op-eration, received the first AFOU Awardgiven to legal personnel.

I received orders on 14 October1954 for assignment to 600th Air BaseGroup, FEAF Base, Tokyo. I was as-signed to Base Intelligence Section asa 70250 clerk-typist. However, I visitedthe Base Legal Office and Major JamesR. Thorn, Staff Judge Advocate, be-lieved my experience would best servetheir office and requested my assign-ment to his office. The Group Com-mander concurred. In February 1955,working in an authorized slot, I wasplaced on OJT for 70270. On 25 May1955, the personnel working in Legalwere authorized their own Legal AFSC70273. TSgt Robert H. Clausen, NCOIC[70273], SSgt Gerald E. McAteer [70253]and myself [70253] received AFSC inbrackets. I was immedi-ately placed in OJT for70273 and was awardedAFSC 70273 on 18 July

1955 and promoted to TSgt on 1 De-cember 1955. Back in those days anaward of a 7 level was paramount forpromotion, together with your OIC rec-ommendation. However, finding an au-thorized slot, getting on OJT, and com-pleting the training before a new as-signee, with that AFSC, came in forcingyour withdrawing from OJT was a chal-lenge. For that reason those placed onOJT were encouraged to use all theirspare time to study and complete thetraining in the shortest period of time. Ireturned to Turner AFB in April 1956,assigned to Base Legal Office.

I was then assigned to Headquar-ters 2nd Air Division, Tan Son Nhut AirBase, Vietnam, in July 1963. The officewas authorized only one airman (legaltechnician), three officers (attorneys),a court reporter and an interpreter. Atthat time, this was the only Legal Officein Vietnam. MSgt Oliver F. Love wasthe first legal technician assigned toVietnam and I was the second, as hisreplacement.

I returned to Turner AFB in July1964 and was there when it was deacti-vated as an AF Base and given to theNavy in 1967. I then went to Home-stead AFB and then to 13AF, Clark AB,Philippines from 1971 to 1972 (unaccom-panied 15 months tour). From Clark, Iwas assigned to Chanute AFB, Illinois,and from there to Keesler AFB in 1973.I retired 1 July l975.

My wife, Bonnie and I have threedaughters, Teresa, Patti and Vicki. Talkabout Air Force brats! Terri was com-missioned a 2nd Lt., USAF, NurseCorps, in Dec 1973 and is now a Colo-nel. She is currently the Deputy Com-

mander, AirForce Nurses,

Surgeon General Department, BollingAFB. Patti married an Air Force enlistedman, who is now retired. Vickie alsomarried an Air Force enlisted man, whostarted his Air Force career in the legalfield, but crossed trained as an OSI in-vestigator. He is also retired from theAF. Vicki is an Air Force civil serviceemployee (20 years, so far).

The Legal AFSC was the best thingto happen to me and the Department. Itprovided the assurance that you wouldalways be assigned to your next sta-tion in the Legal Career Field and quali-fied enlisted personnel would be ableto aid in the production of quality workby a legal office. I served proudly inthe Air Force in the legal career field.

All photos courtesy of CMSgt Freddy Page


Without a doubt, civilian employees play a vital role in the health and success of theDepartment. While there are, of course, many noteworthy civilian employees, one

in particular stands out. The first winner of the Harold R. Vague Award, honorary ChiefMaster Sergeant and faithful employee for 52 years of service to the United States ArmedForces in Japan, Ms. “Eunice” was known and loved by all who came through the YokotaAB legal office. Ms. Eunice was the mainstay of Yokota’s claims office for many years.

Ms. Yasue “Eunice” Uemura was born and raised in Japan. She went to the EiwaMission School and is a graduate of St. Luke’s College of Nursing, Tokyo, Japan. WhenWWII ended in August 1945, she was working as St. Luke’s International Medical Centeras a Nurse Supervisor. Three months later she went to work for the U.S. Army at the TokyoArmy Hospital and worked for U.S. Forces in Japan until her retirement 52 years later. In1953, she became an interpreter and translator for the Provost Marshall at Kisarazu AirBase and also began processing SOFA claims. Throughout the 1950’s and 1960’s she wasa claims examiner at Shiroi Air Base, Fuchu Air Station, and Tachikawa Air Base. From 1970until her retirement, Ms. Eunice worked Hospital Recovery claims at Yokota Air Base and greeted, mentored, entertained, andcharmed many hundreds of JA personnel, their families, and visiting TJAGs. In addition to normal pro-government HospitalRecovery claims, Ms. Eunice assisted personnel injured by Japanese drivers in making claims against Japanese insurancecompanies. That very complex process would be impossible for most service members without help.

Some of Ms. Eunice’s numerous awards and honors include the following: 20 Superior Performance Awards and citations,including a Suggestion Award, 1960; in 1977 an Achievement Certificate awarded by CINCPACAF; the first recipient of the HaroldR. Vague Award, 1979; Japanese Employee of the Year at Yokota, 1987; Outstanding Civilian Employee of the Quarter Awards,1989, 1990, and 1993. PACAF Outstanding Legal Services Civilian of the Year Award, 1990. In September l997, she was inductedas an Honorary Chief Master Sergeant by Major General Hawley and Chief Master Sergeant Yates-Popwell. Although she passedaway in 1998, Ms. Eunice will long be remembered in the hearts and minds of the members of the Department of The JudgeAdvocate General.

(Story and photo from AFJAGS files)

Lieutenant Colonel George Gray, 1954; Captain Ralph Moberly, 1955; Colonel Albert T. Hayes, 1956; Major JamesGoddard, 1957; Lieutenant Colonel Frank E. Callinan, 1958; Lieutenant Colonel Jerome C. Neveleff, 1964; LieutenantColonel Donald C. Helling, 1965; Colonel Thomas Taggert, 1965; Lieutenant Colonel James T. Bullard, 1967; ColonelJoseph F. Corrigan, 1967; Lieutenant Colonel John M. Kennedy, 1967; Lieutenant Colonel James E. Caulfield, 1968;Colonel Gust J. Yandala, 1968; Colonel Joseph Brady, 1969; Lieutenant Colonel Jerome S. Cohn, 1969; LieutenantColonel Walter I. Horlick , 1969; Captain Joseph R. Johnston, Jr., 1971; Lieutenant Colonel Albert S. Tomlinson, 1971;Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Morrow, 1972; Major James R. Mortell, 1972; Chief Master Sergeant Thomas W. O’Connor,1972; Captain George M. Avery, 1973; Lieutenant Colonel Robert L. Bates, 1977; Major Theodore L. Ramirez, 1977;Lieutenant Colonel Guy C. Winks, 1978; Lieutenant Colonel William J. Cook, 1979; Technical Sergeant Albert L.Johnson, 1979; Major John W. Nelson, 1980; Colonel Mack E. Schwing, Jr., 1981; Colonel Robert A. Dunham, 1984; MajorKenneth J. Leeburg, 1984; Captain Lindsey Tyson Wagner, 1985; Lieutenant Colonel Roger T. Carlson, 1986; LieutenantColonel A. Bruce Debey, 1986; Major Lawrence R. Deiter, 1986; Staff Sergeant Mark T. Sessamen, 1986; Captain RobertLeonard, 1989; Captain Patrick M. Seaman, 1989; Major Clyde A. Smith, Jr. , 1989; Captain Leonard J. Tomson, 1989;Captain Richard J. McMahon, 1991; Lieutenant Colonel David W. Woodring, 1992; Major Robert L. Lowry , 1993; CaptainKenneth J. Trigg, 1993; Senior Master Sergeant Peter W. Liedman, Sr., 1994; Captain Dean W. Mullis, 1994; TechnicalSergeant Linda Williams, 1994; Staff Sergeant Deborah Casey, 1998.

�Great Peace Have They Who Love Your Law� Psalm 119-165

Service to Community : Ms. Eunice

We RememberThese Judge Advocates and Paralegals of

The Air Force Judge Advocate General’s DepartmentWho Lost Their Lives

While in The Service of Their County


Outstanding Senior Attorney Award (Stuart R. Reichart Award) - This award honors Mr Stuart R. Reichart, aformer General Counsel of the Air Force, and, presented annually by the Air Force Association, recognizes the outstanding legalachievements of a senior Air Force attorney. The award honors demonstrated excellence, initiative, leadership, management skillsand professionalism in the practice of law. Eligible candidates are attorneys with at least 14 years of service with the Departmentof Defense, with the most recent seven years as a judge advocate or civilian attorney or both for the Air Force. Although thenominator should cite specific examples of outstanding service, the award is for continuous contributions throughout a career offederal service, not a single achievement. A plaque recognizing the winners is on display at the Air Force Judge AdvocateGeneral School, Maxwell AFB. The selected attorney receives an award certificate.

Col John J. Martinez, Jr., 1997; Mr Douglas J. Head, 1996; Col Ralph J. Capio, 1995; Col Jerald D. Stubbs, 1994; ColRichard A. McDonald, 1993; Col William A. Moorman, 1992; Col Dennis E. Kansala, 1991; Mr Grant C. Reynolds, 1990;Col James C. Roan, Jr., 1989; Col William R. Elliott, Jr., 1988; Mr Edward T. Constable, 1987; Lt Col Royle P. Carrington,III, 1986; Col William P. Rudland, 1985; Col Thomas G. Jeter, 1984; Mr Leroy C. Brown, 1983; Lt Col Fredolin W. Kuhn,1982

Outstanding Judge Advocate of the Year Award (Albert M. Kuhfeld Award) - Then-Brigadier General (USAFR)and Mrs. Richard C. Hagan established this award in honor of the late Major General Albert M. Kuhfeld (USAF, Retired), a formerThe Judge Advocate General, USAF. The annual winner is an officer selected as the most outstanding young judge advocate ofthe year, based on demonstrated excellence, initiative and devotion to duty. Eligible candidates are active-duty judge advocatesserving in the grades of captain or major. A plaque recognizing the winners is on display at the Air Force Judge Advocate GeneralSchool, Maxwell AFB. The selected officer receives an award certificate.

Maj Ferdinando P. Cavese, 1998; Maj James B. Roan, 1997; Maj Thomas C. Jaster, 1996; Maj Martha J. Buxton, 1995;Maj Nancy S. Richards, 1994; Maj Steven J. Lepper, 1993; Maj Keith J. Klein, 1992; Maj Christopher Burne, 1991; MajDouglas E. Acklin, 1990; Maj Patrick M. Rosenow, 1989; Capt Kathy A. Montgomery, 1988; Maj Stephen C. Donnelly,1987; Maj David L. Thomas, 1986; Maj Jarisse J. Sanborn, 1985; Maj Barton B. Davis, 1984; Capt Patricia L.VanDenBroeke, 1983; Maj Thomas J. Fiscus, 1982; Maj John J. Martinez, Jr., 1981; Capt Robert S. Schwartz, 1980; CaptLake B. Holt, III, 1979; Capt William A. Moorman, 1978; Maj Scott L. Silliman, 1977; Maj Daniel J. Gallington, 1976; CaptJimmy D. Puett, 1975; Capt Donald C. Rasher, 1974; Capt Jon S. Wheeler, 1973; Capt Carl A. Corrallo, Jr., 1972; Capt JackG. Dranttel, 1971; Capt Russell D. Thompson, 1970; Maj Peter D. Newhouse, 1969; Maj Thomas P. Keenan, Jr., 1968;Maj C. Claude Teagarden, 1967; Maj Gordon A. Ginsburg, 1966; Capt Earl E. Hodgson, Jr., 1965; Maj George G. Dean,Jr., 1964

Outstanding Reserve Judge Advocate of the Year Award (Reginald C. Harmon Award) - This award honorsMajor General Reginald C. Harmon (USAF, Retired), a former The Judge Advocate General, USAF. The annual winner is an officerselected as the most outstanding Air Reserve Component judge advocate, based on training accomplishments or contribution tomission support; exhibition of leadership in contributing to civic, cultural, or professional activities in the military or civiliancommunity; and enrollment in off-duty programs of professional self-improvement. Two plaques recognizing the winner aredisplayed, one at the Air Force Judge Advocate General School and one at the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC), Lowry AFB.The selected officer receives an award certificate.

Maj Robert G. Kenny, 1998; Maj Pamela A. Dugger, 1997; Capt Julia D. Rivera, 1996; Lt Col Graydon V. Olive, III, 1995;Lt Col John N. Kulas, 1994; Lt Col Robert I. Gruber, 1993; Lt Col Lester W. Schiefelbein, 1992; Capt Kevin C. Ambler,1991; Lt Col Herbert R. Schulze, 1990; Maj Stephen H. Rovak, 1989; Lt Col Bernard A. Dickson, 1988; Maj Michael B.Jennison, 1987; Maj Richard D. Roth, 1986; Lt Col Parker A. Denaco, 1985; Maj James M. Caulfield, 1984; Lt Col AlfredE.T. Rusch, 1983; Lt Col Lewis W. Shollenberger, Jr., 1982; Lt Col Clayton B. Burton, 1981; Lt Col Alfred L. Ruebell, II,1980; Capt Jay A. Thompson, 1979; Maj Paul A. Geihs, 1978; Lt Col Peter O. Ehrenhaft, 1977; Maj Jerome Fleischman,1976; Col Gerald Cabitt, 1975

Outstanding Civilian Attorney of the Year Award (James O. Wrightson, Jr. Award) - Mr. John A. Everhardestablished this award in memory of Mr. James O. Wrightson, Jr., former Chief, Military Affairs Division, Office of The JudgeAdvocate General, USAF. The annual winner is the civilian attorney employed by or serving with The Judge Advocate General’sDepartment who has been selected as the most outstanding attorney of the year. The award honors demonstrated excellence,initiative and devotion to duty. A plaque recognizing the winner is displayed at the Air Force Judge Advocate General School.The selected attorney receives an award certificate.

Mr. Ricke D. Hamilton, 1998; Mr. Mark E. Landers, 1997; Mr Douglas P. Goetz, 1996; Mr Paul E. Cormier, 1995; MrWayne A. Warner, 1994; Mr Loren S. Perlstein, 1993; Mr Lyndon B. James, 1992; Mr Roger J. McAvoy, 1991; Mr Samuel

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT AWARDS


R. Hilker, 1990; Mr Daniel G. Jarlenski, Jr., 1989; Ms Sabine W. Kortendick, 1988; Mr Coleman E. Myers, 1987; MrRichard L. Hanson, 1986; Mr Joseph A. Procaccino, 1985; Mr Donald J. Kinlin, 1984; Mr Wolfgang H. Motz, 1983; MrAnthony J. Perfilio, 1982; Mr Paul C. Mitchell, 1981; Mr Donald P. Oulton, 1980; Mr Earl W. Carson, Jr., 1979; Mr EdwardT. Constable, 1978; Mr Bernard O. Marcak, 1977; Mr Richard K. Jacoby, 1976; Mr John J. Powers, Jr., 1975

Outstanding Paralegal Airman of the Year Award (Steve Swigonski Award) - This award honors Chief MasterSergeant Steve Swigonski (USAF, Retired), the first Special Assistant for Legal Airman Affairs to The Judge Advocate General,USAF. The annual winner is the active-duty airman selected as the most outstanding paralegal of the year, based on demon-strated superior initiative, technical skill, leadership ability and devotion to duty. Eligible candidates are paralegals who aretechnical sergeants and below. A plaque recognizing the winner is displayed at the Air Force Judge Advocate General School.The selected paralegal receives an award certificate.

TSgt Robert J. Hudson, 1998; SSgt Rick R. Maki, 1997; TSgt Lisa K. Watson, 1996; SrA Christina F. Filipi-Alexander,1995; TSgt Renee M. Loomis, 1994; SSgt Sherrie L. Rogers, 1993; SSgt Cherri A. Duval, 1992; TSgt Sandra Draper-Ellis,1991; SSgt Delvin C. Whitlock, 1990; TSgt Ann D. Stocks, 1989; TSgt Carl W. Trout, Jr., 1988; TSgt Marsha A. Ptomey,1987; MSgt Carole V. Langdon, 1986; TSgt Darrel K. Curtis, Jr., 1985; TSgt Charles L. O’Connors, 1984; TSgt Gary L.Yochum, 1983; TSgt Charles H. Leathers, Jr., 1982; MSgt Suzanna K. Beil, 1981; TSgt Lynn F. Bartunek, 1980; TSgtThomas C. Downs, 1979; TSgt Dennis A. Kish, 1978; SSgt Peter W. Liedman, 1977; TSgt Eddie J. Kaiser, 1976; TSgtDennis E. Hightower, 1975; SSgt David Archibald, 1974; SSgt Margaret K. Jackson, 1973; TSgt Harold J. Deshaw, 1972;TSgt Daniel L. Packard, 1971; SSgt Cecil White, 1970

Outstanding Reserve Paralegal of the Year Award (David Westbrook Award) - This award honors CMSgtDavid Westbrook (USAFR, Retired), a former Senior Individual Mobilization Augmentee. The award is presented annually to themember of the Air Reserve Component selected as the most outstanding paralegal of the year, based on demonstrated superiorinitiative; technical skill; training accomplishments or contribution to mission support; exhibition of leadership qualities incontributing to civic, cultural, or professional activities in the military or civilian community; and enrollment in off-duty programsof professional self-improvement. Two award plaques recognizing the winner are displayed, one at the Air Force Judge AdvocateGeneral School and the other at ARPC. The selected paralegal receives an award certificate.

SMSgt Renee A. Blancett, 1998; MSgt Monica J. Luke, 1997; SSgt Shannon D. Sanders, 1996; SSgt Max F. Scheck,1995; MSgt Verscia V. Eason, 1994; SSgt Dawn M. Cheugh, 1993; TSgt Dorothy E. Bowman, 1992; TSgt Christine T.Brito, 1991; TSgt David A. Verrett, 1990; SSgt Sonia C. Sutherland, 1989; TSgt Mamie E. Havelka, 1988; TSgt Pamela S.Corrigan, 1987; SMSgt Grant Noble, 1986; TSgt Kathi I. Aurin, 1985; MSgt Oren R. Nollette, 1984; SSgt Brenda D.Smith, 1983

Outstanding Legal Service Civilian of the Year Award (Harold R. Vague Award) - This award honors MajorGeneral Harold R. Vague (USAF, Retired), a former The Judge Advocate General, USAF. The award is presented annually to thelegal service civilian employed by or serving with The Judge Advocate General’s Department who is selected as the mostoutstanding civilian. The award is based on demonstrated excellence, initiative and devotion to duty. Special consideration isgiven to individuals who develop or improve systems, programs, or procedures that improve management efficiency or cost-effectiveness for Air Force legal programs. A plaque recognizing the winner is displayed at the Air Force Judge Advocate GeneralSchool. The selected legal service civilian receives an award certificate.

Ms. Patricia A. Leary, 1998; Ms. Roxanne M. Murek, 1997; Mr Kon Won Yi, 1996; Ms Rayma C. Pratt, 1995; MsMaureen A. Nation, 1994; Ms Dorothy C. Karlsen, 1993; Mr Sentiff C. Busby, 1992; Mrs Elaine E. Morris, 1991; MsCatherine C. Paige, 1990; Ms Ester A. Stubbs, 1989; Mrs Pamela A. Sitzes, 1988; Mrs Linda M. Lutman, 1987; MsJeanette D. Heslop, 1986; Mr Arthur L. Molina, 1985; Mrs Carol L. Moore, 1984; Mr Harry Ulrey, 1983; Ms DeloresCoblens, 1982; Ms Charlotte M. Farkas, 1981; Ms Marion F. Parmley, 1980; Ms Yasue (Eunice) Uemura, 1979

The Judge Advocate General Special Service Award - This award was developed in 1984 to recognize exceptionallymeritorious performance by Department members or outstanding contributions to The Judge Advocate General’s Department.This award may be presented to a member of the Department, a military member or civilian government employee outside theDepartment, or a member of the civilian community. This award is not given annually. A plaque recognizing the winner isdisplayed at the Air Force Judge Avocate General School. The selected person receives an award certificate.

Col Michael B. Jennison, 1997; CMSgt (Ret.) Robert S. Slayton, 1994; Ms. Wenda C.M. Bast, 1992; Gen Russell E.Dougherty, 1989; Col Thomas Krauska, 1984


* Colonel (Ret.) Jean Simpson wasthe first female judge advocate tobe promoted to Colonel. Colonel(Ret.) Mildred L. Raichle, who en-tered the Department in 1966, wasthe first female judge and secondfemale to be promoted to Colonel.The first female African-Americanjudge advocate was Capt JackieEpps who went through JASOC asa member of class 74C. At least tenwomen preceded ColonelLevardsen in the Department.

Nine lawyers were sworn into the Air Force recently and received their first taste ofmilitary life at Maxwell. The nine received direct appointments as captainsand reported immediately to the Judge Advocate General School for aweeklong orientation course. During the week, the new Air Force lawyerswere completely processed into the military and received a rapid-fire over-view of military life. Uniforms were issued, personnel folders were begunand finance records were put in order. Additionally, the group learned asmuch as possible in a week about such things as drill and ceremony, officerand NCO relationships and customs and courtesies. The direct appoint-ment program for lawyers entering the JAG field is relatively new to Max-well. The program began in 1972 with training being given at SheppardAFB, Texas. In 1975, a trial program was initiated at Maxwell, and in May ofthis year, it became an official function of the JAG School. Following theorientation course, the direct appointees join other new Air Force lawyersfor the six week long Judge Advocate Staff Officer Course.

I arrived at Maxwell AFB on Sunday,31 October 1977 as one of about 10in the direct appointee group. There

were three other women (MaggieSchreier, recently retired Colonel, GailLatimer (now Silverman), reserve Colo-nel, and Mariann Martin, at GeneralCounsel’s office for AAFES in Dallas)and at the time there were few otherwomen on active duty as judge advo-cates.* My handsome husband (Jack“Jay” W. Grady, now a lieutenant colo-nel in the reserves) was also in the class.Then-Colonel Keithe E. Nelson (laterTJAG) was the new commandant: wewere his first class. Deputy Comman-dant was Lieutenant Colonel Edward J.Murphy. Instructors included ColonelsGeoff Mangin, Jim Heuple, Dick Jamesand Scott Sillaman. After one week ofhow to salute and who to salute, the

(The following article and accompanying photographs appeared on November 11, 1977 in TheDispatch, Vol. 30, Number 45, at 14, Maxwell/Gunter Base paper)

Direct Appointees Enter the JAG Departmentfirst class of FLEPpers arrived - includ-ing Colonels Jim Swanson, ScottMcLauthlin, Kip At Lee (retired) andLieutenant Colonel, retired Don Nolte(of JAS fame). At the end of JASOC Iwent to Holloman AFB and Jay wentto Osan AB. He flew to Holloman inMarch (18 March 1978) and we weremarried. Then Major Bob Lang at JAXarranged a join spouse tour the follow-ing year to Germany. Jay and I werethe first JAG couple. (By ColonelMartha Levardsen, USAFR)

PRESENT ARMS - Capt Gail Latimer (right front) and three other newly appointed Air Force officers�present arms� as Capt Robert Jaegers and his fellow lawyers observe.

A very new way of lifeStory by Ed Medal, USAF Photos by Dick Byrd

YOUR AIR FORCE BLUES. (righttop to bottom)Capt MarthaLevardsen finds auniform that al-most fits as CaptJan Williamsonhelps her get itready for the alter-ation shop; CaptJan Williamson(right) a facultymember at Aca-demic InstructorSchool, shows Capt Mariann Martin (left) and Capt Margaret Schreierone of several uniforms they will wear during their Air Force careers.


T

M

The Funded Legal Education Program was the productand brainchild of a very different JAG Department and,

indeed, a very different Air Force. Now, as the program rap-idly approaches its 25th birthday – almost exactly half the ageof the Department it was created to serve – a retrospectivelook at FLEP seems in order. As one of FLEP’s first partici-pants and one who later administered the program during atour as chief of JAX, I have a point of view that is admittedlyboth objective and subjective.

The Judge Advocate General’s Department of the early1970s was unlike today’s Department in many ways, not the

least of which was its composition. For starters, the largemajority of JAG captains of that era were products of a muchlarger and more robust national AFROTC program than is thecase in 1999. The draft and the seemingly endless VietnamWar were, of course, key variables in the equation. Manythousands of male college students of the 1960s and early70s, who reasoned that service as an Air Force officer waspreferable to conscripted service as an Army enlisted “grunt,”swelled the cadet rolls of AFROTC detachments around thecountry. Upon completion of their undergraduate studies,many who aspired to be attorneys sought and obtained “edu-cational deferments” which allowed them to attend law schoolprior to coming on active duty to serve out their four-yearROTC commitments.

Given their collective mindset and motivation, it’s probablynot surprising that the vast majority of AFROTC-commis-sioned JAGs served only four years and then took off theuniform (in fairness, many did stay in the reserves) in favor ofthe civilian practices that had always been their intended finaldestination. As a result, by the early 1970s, TJAG’s Depart-ment was awash in new captains who could be reliably countedon to depart at first opportunity.

Their stampede to civilian life meant that for several yearsthere hadn’t been enough captains around when it was timeto compete for promotion to major, and as a result the Depart-ment found itself woefully short of field-graders. Indeed, atone point in 1972, there were over 300 unfilled major and lieu-tenant colonel billets. That gaping hole in the side of the JAGpyramid accounted for the fact that many base SJAs of that

A Quarter Century of FLEPCOLONEL JAMES W. SWANSON

Colonel Swanson (B.A., Purdue University; J.D., Universityof Illinois) is the Commander of Air Force Legal ServicesAgency. He is a member of the State Bar of Illinois.

time were captains – there was simply no one more senioravailable. At the bottom line, this staggering field grade short-age posed the very real danger of a death spiral for the JAGforce model; unless it was corrected, the Department correctlyassessed that it could soon be so short of experienced attor-neys as to make accomplishment of the JAG mission a literalimpossibility.

That, then, was the context that spawned the GoldwaterBill 1 creating the Funded Legal Education Program. The logicbehind the program was straightforward – offer commissionedofficers with between two and six years service the chance to

attend law school at full pay in exchange for a six year commit-ment (in addition to any remaining unserved commitment).Upon graduation, the Department would acquire the guaran-teed services of a cadre of judge advocates who were commit-ted to active duty well past the midway point of a twenty-yearcareer. At that point, it was correctly reasoned, most wouldopt to stay at least until retirement eligibility. The GoldwaterBill authorized each of the services to select 25 officers a yearto participate in the program, and for the first several years theAir Force used the entire quota.

That the program generated significant interest among com-pany grade Air Force officers is indisputable. The first selec-tion board to screen officers for participation in the full three-year program2 was held in the spring of 1974 – over 200 offic-ers applied to be among the 25 who would begin law school atAir Force expense in the fall of the same year. I was one ofthose selected.

My FLEP story is probably typical. I had entered the AirForce three years earlier upon my graduation from

Purdue with a degree in journalism and an AFROTC commis-sion as a second lieutenant. Assigned to the “administra-tion” career field, my first duty station was Sheppard AFB,Texas, where I had been given several good jobs in relativelyquick succession, including a one year stint as commander ofthe Technical School Headquarters Squadron (JAG was notthe only career field that was short of experienced officers)followed by a great assignment as aide-de-camp to the gen-eral officer who commanded Sheppard. Although I had occa-sionally thought that going to law school was something Imight like to do, it was frankly a goal that seemed far out ofmy reach financially - I had married during my sophomoreyear of college, and already had two young daughters who

�The kids got to keep eating and get their new clotheswhile I studied pretty hard, got my law degree, passed the barexam...�


T

had developed a real affinity to eating regularly and seemed toneed new clothes on almost a weekly basis. Further, althoughI wasn’t at all excited about the career prospects and promo-tion opportunities of the admin career field, I had discoveredthat I liked the Air Force lifestyle much more than I ever ex-pected I would. For me, then, FLEP was literal and unexpected“manna from heaven.” It is no exaggeration to say that myselection for the program was the singular and most definingprofessional event in my entire life. Said another way, I’m notsure where circumstances would have led me if it hadn’t beenfor the Goldwater Bill, but I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t haveinvolved either an Air Force career or the practice of law.

“What if?” musings aside, I gratefully accepted my selec-tion and ward-of-the-state status for the next three years. Thekids got to keep eating and get their new clothes while Istudied pretty hard, got my law degree, passed the bar exam,and was admitted to the Illinois bar. In 1977, I was appointedas a judge advocate. Since then I’ve been the beneficiary ofmore than twenty years worth of terrific JAG assignments andexperiences that have been incredibly challenging, rewarding,and enjoyable – I simply can’t imagine any other career path,in or out of uniform, I would have rather followed.

That’s what FLEP gave me. But what did FLEP give to theAir Force and TJAG’s Department, and was it worth the

significant financial cost implicit in a program of fully subsi-dized law school attendance?3

For starters, FLEP helped deliver what it originally prom-ised – a long-term solution to what had been a chronic fieldgrade shortage. Within just a few years, due in large part tothe infusion of willingly indentured mid-career JAGs that FLEPprovided, massive vacancies in the grade of major and lieu-tenant colonel became a thing of the past. By the early 80s, forexample, most 0-4 and 0-5 staff judge advocate billets werefilled by JAGs of the appropriate rank, and the Departmenthas been “healthy” in terms of field grade manning ever since.That’s primarily because most FLEP graduates did what JAGplanners had hoped and expected they would do – stay atleast until 20 years service.4

In at least two other ways, however, it can be argued thatFLEP has actually delivered much more than it promised.

The first has been FLEP’s enormous impact upon theDepartment’s cadre of senior leadership – colonels and lieu-tenant colonels with more than 20 years service. Such animpact was not expected. In fact, the initial working assump-tion was that virtually all FLEPers would depart at first retire-ment eligibility (when most would be in their early 40s) beforethey were even eligible for primary zone promotion to colonel.The reality has been very different - a sizable number of FLEPgrads have not only stayed around to compete for 0-6, butmany have remained well beyond that point and been affordedthe opportunity to serve in virtually every variety of seniorJAG assignment.5

The second unexpected impact has been the terrifically use-ful cross-pollination the program has generated. FLEP hasover the course of its existence infused the Department withan undeniably healthy dose of experience and expertise from

virtually all AF career fields – FLEP grads wear wings andmissile badges, have flown over Iraq during Desert Storm,have worked in AFOSI and security police, understand theintricacies of the personnel and comptroller functions, etc.,etc., etc. Thanks to FLEP, TJAG’s Department has collec-tively “been there, done that” with regard to almost every-thing the Air Force does - the improved contextual and opera-tional awareness on the part of the Department and resultantenhanced credibility with its Air Force client may not be easyto measure, but they are nevertheless real.

FLEP has, of course, been modified and significantly slimmeddown since its heyday of the 1970s and early 1980s. Fiscalconsiderations and the easing of the field-grade shortage thatwas the program’s principal mission have prompted a series ofdecisions over the years to gradually reduce participation tothe present level of seven officers a year. Yet like the Energizerbunny, FLEP keeps on going and going and going, offering itsspecial brass ring of life-changing opportunity to young USAFofficers in other career fields, and providing the Department asteady flow of career JAGs with uniquely useful backgroundsand perspectives.

Thus, as we celebrate the golden anniversary of the AirForce Judge Advocate General’s Department, it’s also appro-priate to offer a toast to FLEP on the occasion of its own silveranniversary. Those of us who were lucky enough to be itsindividual beneficiaries obviously have our own compellingreasons to celebrate FLEP’s existence. Beyond that, however,it’s indisputable that the Funded Legal Education Programhas made a vital contribution to the health and success ofTJAG’s Department over the past 25 years – everyone whowears a JAG badge has reason to celebrate the program andits success.

Happy birthday, FLEP . . . and thanks!

1 Pub. L. 93-155, Defense Appropriations Act, 1974, codifiedat 10 U.S.C. 2004, then entitled “Detail of CommissionedOfficers of the Military Departments as Students at LawSchool,” now entitled “Detail of Commissioned Officers asStudents at Law Schools,” See also DODD 1322.12, FundedLegal Education, April 12, 1974 and AFI 51-101, JudgeAdvocate Accession Program, Chapter 2, Funded LegalEducation Program (FLEP), 25 August 1994, replacing AFR36-7.2 Given the timing of the Goldwater Bill’s enactment, the AFwas actually able to conduct a board a few months earlier thatconferred FLEP status on some active duty officers currentlyattending law school at their own expense. The spring 1974board, however, was the first to select officers to begin lawschool under FLEP.3 FLEP is not cheap. In today’s dollars, a 1st Lt selected forFLEP has won a “scholarship” – salary, tuition, and a bookallowance – worth somewhere between $150,000 to $200,000over the three years of law school.4 Historically, a full 80% of all FLEP participants have stayedon active duty until at least retirement eligibility.5 As of November 1998, over a quarter (34 of 130) of theDepartment’s colonels and colonel selects are FLEP graduates.


We lost a few members of our faculty inOctober 1952, when JAGs were taken offflying status. Quite a number of us wereon flying status at the time, but mostelected to remain with the JAG.

~ Colonel Ernest R. Mattoon,Instructor Air Force JAG School in 1950s

The Great Big School House

Major Howard (B.A., Austin College; J. D., University of Ar-kansas) is an Instructor, Military Justice Division, Air ForceJudge Advocate General School. He is a member of the Ar-kansas State Bar.

The First SchoolThe Air Force Judge Advocate General School (the School)

was first organized in 1950 at the direction of the first JudgeAdvocate General (TJAG), Major General Reginald T. Harmon.Major General Harmon perceived the Air Force needed a judgeadvocate school to deal with the training requirements asso-ciated with the adoption of the Uniform Code of Military Jus-tice and the increase in military personnel resulting from theKorean War.1

An early version of the School commenced at Tyndall AirForce Base (AFB) around 19492 with Lieutenant Colonel JamesE. Driver as the first commandant.3 Colonel Driver made themove to Maxwell AFB when the School was first formallyestablished as the Judge Advocate General Division underthe Air Command and Staff School.4 The School had basi-cally three functions at the time: 1) teach The Judge AdvocateGeneral Staff Officer Course; 2) develop and maintain legalcorrespondence courses for the newly developed ExtensionCourse Institute; and 3) provide legal instruction to the other

divisions and schools within the Air Command and StaffSchool.5

Lieutenant Colonel James E. Driver served as the comman-dant until Colonel John E. Blackstone was assigned as thecommandant in mid-1953. To accomplish the original teachingrequirements there were sixteen officers, two administrativepersonnel, and six civilians assigned to the School.6 Fiveofficers were assigned to instruct in the Military Justice Divi-sion, five were assigned to instruct in the Military AffairsDivision, and three officers were assigned to teach extensionand associate courses at the school.7 The other three officerswere assigned to the administration and evaluation division. 8

The main course taught from 1950-1954 was The JudgeAdvocate General Staff Officer Course. The course length

MAJOR R. SCOTT HOWARD


ranged from 10 to 14 weeks. There were three 12-week coursesoffered in 1951; four 10-week courses in 1952; two 10-weekcourses and one 14-week course in 1953; and three 14-weekcourses conducted in 1954. Each course was comprised ofapproximately 60–70 judge advocates. The Judge AdvocateGeneral Staff Officer Course was organized into four areas.Military Justice and Military Management were taught duringthe first part of the course, usually lasting around five weeks.The remainder of the course was split between Military Af-fairs and integrated problem solving, combining the aboveareas whenever possible. In addition, guest lecturers fromoutside of the Department as well as members of the Depart-ment were also invited to teach the class.9

It is of particular interest that during the first year of theSchool’s existence, future TJAG Major General Harold Vagueattended the first class, graduating on 30 March 1950.10 Ac-cording to Major General Vague, this first course was designedto teach the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manualfor Courts-Martial, which were both new at the time.11 Then-Captain Vague noted “the manual had not been printed andwe used a, I would call it a Ditto reproduction, of the pages ofthe regular manual. That was the only one we had.”12

A basic military training program was instituted at the Schoolin mid-1952 with Class 52-C. The curriculum expansion wasaimed at orienting the recent law school graduates to militarycustoms, courtesies, and discipline. Major General James Tay-lor, Jr. (then-First Lieutenant and later Deputy Judge Advo-cate General) was among the first students to receive trainingunder the expanded curriculum.13

In 1954, the number of JAG officers needing formalized train-ing diminished to the point that Major General Harmon de-cided the School was no longer needed. Major General Harmonbelieved the JAG Department needed to establish the sametraining policy as other large law firms throughout the UnitedStates.14 The General thought the Department did not need aformalized training school for newly hired lawyers, as no othermajor law firm had one.15 It was decided training could beeffectively done on the job at the various base offices through-out the Air Force.16 As a result, the School was dismantled in1955, two years after the ceassation of hostilities in Korea.

The Department did not again have a formalized training schooluntil 1968.

The Reestablished SchoolThe re-establishment of the School in 1968 was the product

of then-TJAG Major General Robert Manss. According to anold memorandum, in 1968 a school for training new judge ad-vocates was again considered essential.17 Until the Schoolwas reestablished in 1968, the Department’s primary trainingtools consisted of on the job training (OJT) and a correspon-dence course dealing solely with military justice. The OJTand correspondence course that had been used for the previ-ous 14 years had not proven to be consistently satisfactory.A memorandum from Colonel Robert O. Rollman, then the Ex-ecutive Officer to TJAG evidenced this. According to Colo-nel Rollman’s memorandum:

The comprehensive and complex nature of militarylaw today, coupled with the unsatisfactory perfor-mance of some of our young officers, makes it im-perative that they be uniformly trained at the be-ginning of their military career (and before report-ing to their first duty station). Moreover, many ofour young judge advocates have decried the lackof a formalized training program at an early stage intheir military career.18

As further justification for the course, Colonel Rollman ob-served:

Military law today is much broader in scope anddepth than it was ten or twelve years ago. . . .Supreme Court decisions now require the partici-pation of an attorney from the earliest investiga-tive stages onward. . . . The Hospital RecoveryAct, effective January 1963, opened up an entirelynew area for our claims personnel. Sonic boomshave increased. Amendments to [the] Federal TortClaims Act now require filing of claims prior to in-stituting suit. The Federal Collections Act of 1966imposes responsibilities and involved proceduresin the area of claims in favor of the governmenthitherto exercised by the Attorney General. Therecently enacted Administrative Procedure Act(with the Freedom of Information Amendment) hasthe potential for considerable judge advocate in-volvement. The judge advocate is active in areasof civil rights and labor law. He is deeply involvedin administrative law and the myriad personnel ac-tions and/or litigation connected therewith. Thetrend in civil litigation involving the Air Force isupward. Activity in the procurement law field hasbecome [increasingly] extensive and involved...19

The School that re-opened in 1968 was originally designedto offer one course: the Judge Advocate General Indoctrina-tion Course. The curriculum consisted of 88 lectures and was

1965 JAG School lecture on the operation of alegal office.


taught over a 6-week period. The course was offered six timesa year to approximately 210 students. The original mission ofthe course was:

To provide junior judge advocates with a founda-tion in the principles and concepts of military lawand Air Force procedures which will increase theirprofessional qualifications as legal officers and asmembers of the commander’s staff.20

Colonel Quincy Tucker was the commandant in 1968 wherehe remained until 1970. Colonel Neil Kadsan was then as-signed as commandant and served in that position until 1974.Colonel Lew D. Brundage was the commandant from 1974-1977.

Throughout the 1970s, courses were continually added tothe School’s curriculum. By the mid-1970s the School wasteaching the following courses in addition to JASOC:Reserve Forces Judge Advocate Course; Staff JudgeAdvocate Course; Legal Specialist AdvancedCourse; Interservice Military Judges Seminar; andthe Judge Advocate Officer Orientation Course.21

In addition, the School’s faculty members werealso active participants in other courses taughtthroughout Air University. Faculty memberslectured at Air War College, Air Command andStaff College, Squadron Officer School, theBase Commanders’ Management Course,the Senior NCO Academy, the Air ForceProfessional Personnel ManagementSchool, and the Air Force ChaplainSchool.

In 1977, future TJAG then-ColonelKeithe E. Nelson became comman-dant of the School. By then, TheJudge Advocate General Indoctri-nation Course had been renamedthe now familiar Judge AdvocateStaff Officer Course (JASOC).JASOC was six-weeks in lengthand was offered four times ayear. The mission of thecourse had been changed tothe following:

To provide judgeadvocates with afoundation inprinciples andconcepts ofmilitary lawand AirForce pro-c e d u r e s ,o r g a n i z a -tion, and doctrinewhich will adapt their profes-sional qualifications to the military sys-

tem and increase their potential as members of thecommander’s staff. To prepare graduates for certi-fication as trial and defense counsel in accordancewith the UCMJ.22

The same year, the direct appointee training program be-came an official function of the School. As in the 1950s, newjudge advocates were indoctrinated in military life with a week-long introduction to customs, courtesies and a general over-view of the military.23 Additionally, the first group of FundedLegal Education Program (FLEP) participants became judgeadvocates and attended JASOC.24

Major General Nelson served as the School’s commandantuntil he was reassigned in 1981. In 1981 Colonel Charles E.Edwards was assigned as the commandant of the School andremained until 1986. Colonel Donald C. Rasher followed Colo-nel Edwards and was the commandant from 1986-1991.

During the 1980s, the mission of the School con-tinued to expand. By 1984, the faculty assigned

to the School were responsible forteaching eleven resident

courses.25 Over800 Air

WILLIAM L. DICKINSON

2D District, AlabamaCongress of the United States

House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515-0102November 9, 1992

Major General David C. Morehouse

HQ USAF JAWashington, D.C. 20330Dear General Morehouse:Words can never express the deep appreciation I feel for the great honor the

U.S. Air Force has bestowed on me by naming the new JAG school the Dickinson

Law Center. I am proud of your honoring me this way, but especially I am proud

of the JAG school and what it means to the Air Force and to the men and women

who will be served by the very best in legal education and training.

Maxwell Air Force Base, Air University, is in the forefront of the world’s mili-

tary education institutions and it is certainly fitting and proper that the JAG

school be located there. It has been a real pleasure and honor to have served as

Congressman for the Second District of Alabama, and as a ranking member of the

Armed Services Committee, to be able to play a part in the growth and develop-

ment of the Air University and the JAG school.

I hope that I can continue to be of service to the Air Force, Maxwell, and the

Dickinson Law Center in some way. Please call on me anytime. Again, thank you

so much for this great honor.

Sincerely,Wm. L. DICKINSON


Force judge advocates, civilian attorneys, and paralegals at-tended these courses.26 Two new advocacy courses, the Trialand Defense Advocacy course and the Advanced Trial Ad-vocacy Course, were added to the curriculum in 1984.27 TheTrial and Defense Advocacy Course was offered three timesin 1984 to a total of 96 students.28 The Advanced Trial Advo-cacy Course was offered one time in 1984 and was attended

by 32 students.29

The School’s fac-ulty also continuedto remain in demandto teach at otherschools throughoutAir University.Throughout the1980s, the AIR FORCE

LAW REVIEW and THE

REPORTER also re-ceived greater em-phasis. The LAW

REVIEW was pub-lished approxi-mately four times ayear throughoutmuch of the 1980sand the responsibil-

ity for editing THE REPORTER was transferred to the Schoolbeginning in December 1986.

A New Building In the early 1980s, several senior leaders of the Departmentbegan to look at the possibility of the School and the Depart-ment having an actual JAG school learning center facility. ThenTJAG Major General Thomas B. Bruton commissioned a studyin 1985 on the needs of the Department for a JAG schoolfacility. Brigadier General Norman R. Thorpe was in charge ofthe study group and signed a report outlining their recom-mendations on 4 November 1985. While Major General Norriswas TJAG (1985 to 1988) law schools across the nation wereinvited to bid on building a 100 person dormitory and lawfacility.30

The School was in need of a facility with the capacity andequipment to enable the School to conduct multiple coursesat one time and provide a location to conduct Departmentmeetings. The Department also wanted a complex large enoughfor the JAS personnel, who were then located in Denver, Colo-rado. It was also determined through a TJAG School StudyGroup that the role of the JAG School should be expanded toinclude responsibility for: long-term JAG concept planningand development; acting as the computerized clearinghousefor legal assistance (and possibly other areas of law); manag-ing, monitoring and coordinating all legal education and train-ing of judge advocate and non-JAG lawyers within the AirForce.31

When now retired Colonel Donald C. Rasher became com-mandant of the School in 1986, one of the many things he didwas help develop the idea and plans for the current Air Force

Judge Advocate General School. Colonel Rasher, togetherwith several members of the faculty and staff assigned to theSchool at the time, designed a building with the above initialconcepts in mind. The School, as we know it today, was ini-tially known as The Judge Advocate General’s DepartmentCenter for Education, Research, Plans and Information. Origi-nally, the facility consisted of two levels and was designed tobe approximately 50,000 square feet. This original size waslater modified to three levels and 75,000 square feet to incor-porate billeting rooms for students attending courses at theschool.32

There were two ideas for the location of the School. TheSchool could be located on an Air Force installation or at a lawschool. Ultimately, the two universities that expressed themost interest and offered proposals to co-locate the School attheir university were the University of Denver and the Univer-sity of Alabama. Of the two proposals offered, the Universityof Alabama’s proposal was the best.33 A bid for building thefacility at Maxwell AFB was also obtained, but was not ascost effective as the University of Alabama proposal.34

The University of Alabama offered to build a 55,000 squarefoot facility plus a 100-room dormitory to house students at-tending the courses.35 However, moving the Judge AdvocateGeneral School from Air University was not as easy as accept-ing the offer from the University of Alabama. During the latter1980s an Air Force Council had been established to make rec-ommendations to the Chief of Staff (CSAF) concerning thefuture of the School. Now TJAG (then Colonel) Major GeneralWilliam A. Moorman briefed the Council on the University ofAlabama proposal.36 During the briefing, the Vice Chief ofStaff praised the concept of training Air Force judge advo-cates at an Air Force base.37 In 1988, the Air Force Councilrecommended: 1) the School remain at Maxwell AFB; 2) theJAS Directorate be consolidated with the School; 3) the build-ing of a new 56,600 square foot law center; and 4) the buildingof a 48,000 square foot dormitory facility to house 100 stu-dents.38 The CSAF concurred with the recommendations ofthe Air Force Council that same year.39

The construction of the School began three years later in

Groundbreaking for the new School. Maj GenMorehouse and Congressman Dickinson


Larceny At The School

I was assigned as an instructor in law at the AFJAG School. I felt honored to be on the faculty with folks who

were already legends (in their own, if not others’, minds) suchas (current ranks), Col Tom Becker, Col Al Passey, Col (ret.)Bill Lockwood, Col (ret.) Jeff Owens, Col (ret.) Maggie Schreier,Lt Col (ret.) Mike Powell, Lt Col (ret.) Mark Magness, Mr.(SES) Gordon Wilder, and Maj (ret.) Darrell Phillips, amongmany other “greats.” Col (ret.) Don Rasher was the Comman-dant. The faculty, then (as now, I’m sure) was short on neithercreativity nor ego. We were always trying to “out cute” eachother by coming up with good jokes and various other atten-tion-steps during our lectures.

Problem was, no one ever laughed at Al Passey’s jokes,and it was beginning to get under his skin. One day, early inthe morning, he told a great joke to all us faculty members thatmade us laugh so hard it brought tears to our eyes. Al said hewas going to tell it during his claims lecture at 1000 hours thatday, and he was totally confident the students would (finally)laugh at one of his jokes.

I had a 0900 lecture, so I told the joke to the students at thattime. Needless to say, when Al got on the stage at 1000 andtold the joke, nobody laughed. He was totally deflated, andasked the students why they didn’t laugh. Of course, theyratted me out.

At 1150, just before the lunch break, I was summoned intothe JASOC lecture hall to stand in front of the student body,where Tom Becker formally preferred charges (on a DD Form458) against me under Article 134, for “larceny of a joke (beingof some value)”, with (then) Major Al Passey signing as ac-cuser. I was tried and convicted on the spot by the JASOCstudents. I never appealed, although the jury was obviouslytainted. (By Lt Col David Hoard, USAFR)

August 1991. Congressman William L. Dickinson, LieutenantGeneral Charles G. Boyd, AU/CC, and then-TJAG Major Gen-eral David C. Morehouse attended the groundbreaking cer-emony. Less than two years later, on May 21, 1993, the Schoolwas officially inaugurated.40 Congressman Dickinson ad-dressed the crowd at the inauguration ceremony of the Will-iam L. Dickinson Law Center and the Russell E. DoughertyHall.41 Retired General Russell E. Dougherty, Lieutenant Gen-eral Jay Kelley, AU/CC, and Major General Morehouse at-tended the inauguration.42 The Dickinson Law Center hastwo auditoriums, a 40,000 volume capacity library, two mootcourtrooms, thirteen seminar rooms, four computer educationtraining classrooms, a conference facility, faculty offices,lounges, a state-of-the-art audio-visual system, and theDepartment’s heritage display room.43

Paralegals Training at MaxwellThe first paralegal course taught in the new Dickinson Law

Center was the Paralegal Apprentice Course (PAC). It wastaught soon after the Dickinson Law Center opened in 1993.

Previously, PAC was known as the Paralegal Specialist Courseand was taught at Keesler AFB. Prior to 1993, only a limitednumber of courses were offered to paralegals at the School.The first paralegal course taught at the School was in 1974.That course was the Legal Services Advanced Course (LSAC),renamed the Legal Services NCOIC Course, now referred to asthe Law Office Managers Course (LOMC). LSAC was offeredone time a year to a total of 40-50 paralegals. In 1980, theClaims and Tort Litigation Course (CTLC) was added to theparalegal curriculum. Originally, CTLC was a four-week para-legal course offered once a year to about 40-50 paralegals.CTLC was later reduced to two weeks. In 1992, the ParalegalAdvanced Law Course (PALC) was first offered. PALC wastaught until the Paralegal Craftsman Course was added to thecurriculum in 1995. 44

ConclusionSince the inauguration of the new building, the School has

had three commandants. Colonel Robert E. Sutemeier servedas the commandant from 1991-1995, Colonel Jack L. Rives wasthe commandant from 1995-1998, and Colonel David G. Ehrhartis the present commandant. Today, the School is in session 50weeks a year teaching over 30 different resident courses toapproximately 3600 students annually.45 One of the primarycourses still taught at the School is JASOC. Three JASOCclasses are taught each year and lawyers from foreign coun-tries periodically attend one of these now nine-week courses.With outside teaching responsibilities throughout other AirUniversity schools and colleges teaching approximately 12,000students annually, what originally began as a small school toorient new Air Force lawyers has developed into a dynamiceducational institution serving the Air Force Judge AdvocateGeneral’s Department and the future leaders of the UnitedStates Air Force.46

1 Gary D. Null, The JAG School, THE REPORTER, Vol. 22, No. 2(1995), at 31-32. 2 Letters from Colonel Earnest R. Mattoon (USAF ret.),instructor at the School 1952-1955, to the Commandant andCaptain Bruce Smith (20 September 1990 and 8 June 1992) (onfile at the School).

Moving into the new school. (left to right)SMSgt J. Whitaker, MSgt D. Harmon, andMSgt J. Such


An inveterate fighter against oppression by an aggressor nation was graduated last week from the Air Commandand Staff School’s Judge Advocate General Staff Officer course here. The fighter is Maj Amado Q. Aleta, combat

leader during WWII in the Philippines, prisoner of war, guerrilla, war crimes prosecutor and investigator for the Filipinogovernment against the Hukbalahap (Huks) dissidents still roaming the hills of the Philippines.

The Major, who was graduated a lawyer from the University of Manila six days before Pearl Harbor, was appointedcommander of a machine gun company in January of 1942 on Bataan and remained there until the surrender of thepeninsula April 9, 1942.

Major Aleta endured the infamous Death March from Bataan to the Japanese concentration camp at CampO’Donnell where he remained a prisoner of war for five months. The Japanese instigated their “co-operation” programduring that period and most Filipino prisoners were released into the Filipino constabulary, sponsored and run by theJapanese.

Major Aleta was given the command of a company of the constabulary in central Luzon (the main island of thePhilippines). After a two-month orientation period, the Major contacted the Guerrilla Force’s local intelligence officer.Thereafter he furnished the guerrillas with information about Japanese movements. In November 1944, on orders fromMaj Robert B. Lapham, head of the Luzon Guerrilla Armed Forces, the entire constabulary deserted to join the guerril-las. Major Aleta took the job of personnel officer of the Guerrilla Forces and continued in that capacity until the endof the war.

At the end of the War, the Major was assigned to the Amnesty Section of the Philippine Army Judge AdvocateGeneral. There, Major Aleta prepared, for consideration by the Amnesty Commission, cases involving guerrillas whohad committed crimes during the war. In 1950, the Military Intelligence Legal Office was organized in the ArmedForces of the Philippines and Major Aleta joined it as the Executive Officer. After eight months as executive officer,the Major advanced to Chief of the Office. He was responsible for the studies of investigations of subversiveactivities and to supplement such investigations. This included preparation of the cases for trial by civil authorities.He was actively engaged in the documentation of the subversive cases against the Philippine Communist Politburounder which the “Huks” operated.

As a result of the prosecutions which followed, a number of communist leaders in the Philippines were convicted ofrebellion.

For his work in connection with the cases, Major Aleta was awarded the Military Merit Medal of the Philippines.Subsequently, his office was instrumental in the prosecution of the four major Chinese Communist leaders in thePhilippines. The four were deported.

Shortly after his arrival at the Air Command and Staff School, Major Aleta received a letter of recommendation fromRamon Magsaysay, Secretary of National Defense of the Philippines, for his work in the case.

Major Aleta was sent to the Judge Advocate General Staff Officer course at Maxwell in order to further his career inlegal work, which he will resume upon his return to the Philippines. This is his first trip to the United Stales. [Sic.]

Of his course at Maxwell, the Major said, in connection with the group discussion method used, “I am impressedwith their democratic atmosphere and I could see in these group discussions democracy in action.” Major Aletadonated transcripts of decisions and case histories concerning Communist trials in the Philippines to the documentcollection of the Air University Library before his departure.

(This article appeared on 3 April 1953 in the Maxwell/Gunter AFB newspaper Dispatch)

From Bataan to Montgomery

3 Null, supra note 1, at 31-32. 4 Colonel James E. Heupel, (USAF ret.), The Air Force JudgeAdvocate General School, THE REPORTER, Vol. 7, December1978, at 13; Mattoon letters, supra note 2. 5 Colonel Heupel, supra, note 4, at 13-14. 6 Master File Administration, undated memorandum (on file atthe School). 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 Mattoon letter, supra note 2, 20 September 1990. 10 Null, supra note 1, at 31-32. 11 Id. at 31. 12 Id. at 31. 13 Colonel Heupel, supra note 4, at 14. 14 Null, supra note 1, at 31. 15 Id. at 31. 16 Colonel Heupel, supra note 4, at 14.

17 AF Form 19, Request to Establish/Continue Special ShortCourse Training submitted by Colonel Robert O. Rollman(USAF), Executive Officer to TJAG (undated) (on file at theSchool). 18Id. 19 This quote was from a memorandum attached to ColonelRollman’s AF Form 19. 20 Letter from Colonel Allen C. Durgin (USAF), Director ofManpower and Organization, Air University, to HQ USAF(AFJAG) (2 May 1968) (on file at the school). 21 Colonel Heupel, supra note 4, at 14. 22Id. at 15. 23 Ed Medal, A Very New Way of Life, Maxwell-Gunter Dispatch,v. 30, No 45, at 14 (reprinted in this edition of The Reporter). 24 Colonel James W. Swanson, A Quarter Century of FLEP,this edition of THE REPORTER. 25 History of the Air Force Judge Advocate General School CY


When Major General Harold Vague succeeded Major General Cheney, he called me in the first time I was on duty at hisoffice and advised me that he wanted me to concern myself with the readiness of all of the 975+ reserve Judge

Advocate Officers to perform capably in the event of recall to active duty. My immediate response to his request for myopinion as to readiness was that those younger officers who had left active duty a few years ago were undoubtedly still fullyqualified, but that many of the officers who hadn’t been on active duty for a number of years might not be current on legalissues throughout the spectrum of legal problems handled by Air Force Judge Advocate Officers. He suggested that I finda way to bring all of the officers, including those who were assigned to reserve units and to National Guard units up to areasonably current status educationally.

About that time, a reservist, Colonel Lawrence Miller, signed on for a four-year active duty tour as Reserve Advisor toTJAG. He was a reservist from New Hampshire and had been both a unit officer and an IMA. Most of his history was in theunit operations. Also, participating in the effort was Colonel James Heise, the legal advisor to the Chief of the National Guard.Finally, Colonel Mack E. Schwing, the active duty staff judge advocate at Air Reserve Personnel Center was involved in theeffort.

The solution had to be some form of continuing legal education. Needless to say, CLE had become pretty universal by thattime, and was a requirement to maintain a license to practice law in many of the states.

We discussed at great length the structure of the program, and decided that it would be an all-day Saturday and an all-daySunday weekend operation, conducted at five air bases, geographically scattered around the United States and wouldconsist of some 14 legal subjects with lectures by highly qualified individuals. Some of the instructors were reservists andsome were active duty officers. We named the program “The Judge Advocate General’s Annual Survey of the Law.” The firstone was held at McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. Written material was prepared by each lecturer, in the typical CLEformat.

The requirement was laid on that each officer would have to attend every other year, and the requirement at that time for thereserve refresher course (2 weeks at Maxwell Air Force Base at the Judge Advocate General School) was every six years. Thismeant that a reserve officer would go to the Survey in year l, and in year 3, and in year 5 would go to the Judge AdvocateGeneral School.

The geographical distribution was designed to keep travel costs at a minimum and to reduce the amount of time involvedfor the reserve officers traveling to and from the base where the particular CLE conference was held. We utilized McGuire,Andrews, Robins, Randolph, Wright Patterson, Travis, Norton, and perhaps others. The selection of the five bases resultedin about 100 reserve officers attending each Annual Survey. and the attempt was to locate the annual Survey to produce thatresult. We had slightly less than 1,000 reserve officers at the time and it worked out numerically pretty well.

The reserve and guard training program that began in 1978 continues today in an expanded and modified fashion.

Editor’s note: AFJAGS hosts the Reserve Forces Judge Advocate Course (RFJAC) twice a year, the Reserve ForcesParalegal Course twice a year, the Deployed Air Reserve Components Operations and Law Course once a year, and theAnnual Survey of the Law held in Denver once a year. Reservists are currently required to attend the Survey once in fouryears and RFJAC once in four years staggered on a two year rotation with the Survey.

The Annual Survey of the LawMAJOR GENERAL ROBERT M. MARTIN, JR. (RET.)

1984, input to the Center for Professional Development UnitHistorian (on file at the School). 26 Id. 27 Id. 28 Id. 29 Id. 30 The facts in this paragraph are from an address given byMajor General Keithe E. Nelson (USAF ret.) to a JASOCgraduation dinner on 10 December 1998. 31 The facts in this paragraph are from an interview with ColonelDonald C. Rasher (USAF ret.) (11 January 1999) and; SummaryReport, TJAG School Study Group, 4 Nov. 1985. 32 Id. 33 Id. 34 Nelson address, supra note 30. 35 Rasher interview, supra note 35. 36 Nelson address, supra note 30. 37 Id.

38 AU Form 31, Item of Interest submitted by Colonel CharlesG. Colvin (USAF) (13 February 1989) (on file at the School). 39 Id. 40 JAG complex inaugurated, Maxwell-Gunter Dispatch, v. 47,No 21, at 7. 41 Id. 42 Id. 43 Dickinson Law Center Annual Bulletin, 1997-98, page 5-6. 44 The facts in this paragraph are from an interview with SeniorMaster Sergeant James R. Whitaker (USAF ret.) Director ofAdministration, Air Force Judge Advocate General School(23 January 1999); See Paralegal History in a Nutshell byCaptain Denise Burke and Technical Sergeant Sherrie Rogersin this edition of THE REPORTER for more detailed informationof the paralegal courses. 45 Annual Bulletin, supra note 43, at 4. 46 Id. at 5.


A Proud TraditionMAJOR CHRISTOPHER C. VAN NATTA

Major van Natta (B.S. andJ.D., Indiana University) isan Instructor, Civil Law Di-vision, Air Force Judge Ad-vocate General School. Heis a member of the MinnesotaState Bar.

I t is often said that historyis the best teacher. Sincethe adage surely is true,

the best teacher at the AirForce Judge Advocate Gen-eral School is not a major, cap-tain, or even a colonel. Thebest teacher is not a personat all. It is, rather, a room — aroom that holds the lessons,

wisdom, and guidance oftime. It is a room that hasmeaning for every member ofthe Judge AdvocateGeneral’s Department. It is aroom that displays the historyof the Department. It is theHeritage Room.

The Heritage Room hasbeen part of the Judge Advo-cate General School since theSchool was built in 1993. Af-ter taking the opportunity tovisit this room and learn aboutthe past, one certainly under-stands there is much more tobeing a judge advocate orparalegal than simply practic-ing law in a blue uniform.

When walking into theHeritage Room, one is notstruck by the size of theroom—it is actually quitesmall—or the quality andcolor of the impressive wood-work and carpet. The room’slife comes not from its physi-cal structure. Rather, thespirit of the Heritage Room isin the books, pictures, and ar-tifacts gracing its walls andoccupying its shelves. If apicture is worth a thousandwords, then the books, pic-tures, uniforms, medals, andother items on display in theHeritage Room must surely beworth millions.

The room is anchored bytwo corner display cases con-taining uniforms and personalitems of two firsts in the De-partment — the first JudgeAdvocate General of the AirForce, Major General

Reginald C. Harmon, and thefirst Senior Paralegal Mangerto the Judge Advocate Gen-eral (at that time entitled Spe-cial Assistant to the JudgeAdvocate General), ChiefMaster Sergeant SteveSwigonski. Whether it is thefirst pair of stars to sit on theshoulders of a Judge Advo-cate General or the first ChiefMaster Sergeant stripes of theSenior Paralegal Manager,both of which are displayedin the Heritage Room, the sto-ries behind the items provideinsight into the origins of thebest legal department in thearmed services. Indeed, thedocument authorizing the for-mation of our Departmenthangs next to President HarryS. Truman’s appointment ofGeneral Harmon to the rank ofMajor General. Before we canunderstand where we are go-ing and what the nextmillenium holds for our De-partment, we absolutely mustunderstand our origins.Spending time in the HeritageRoom brings about awarenessin a way that perhaps noth-ing else can.

Some of the Department’sguiding principles given to usby the second The Judge Ad-vocate General, Major General

Maj Gen Harmon�suniform and memorabilia.


~ Upon Our Heritage of Justice Soar theWings of Victory

Albert M. Kuhfeld are alsodisplayed in the room. Alongwith a photograph of him withGeneral LeMay and memen-tos demonstrating the deepadmiration and respect mem-bers of the Department andAir Force had for Major Gen-eral Kuhfeld, are a few pagesof correspondence with ayoung judge advocate. Inthose letters, Major GeneralKuhfeld sets forth his view ofour Department’s position inthe Air Force. He noted,“there is but one Air Forcewith but one set of objectives[and] [o]ur department is anindivisible part of that effort .. . we perform our main role aspart of management of the AirForce.” It is historical lessonsof this importance that, today,hold the key to ourDepartment’s future.

The Heritage Room alsodocuments our participationin the conflicts fought by ourcountry in the last five de-cades. Whether it is the uni-forms from those conflicts, thelegal materials, or the medalsearned by judge advocates indefense of their country, thelessons are clear. When ourcountry went to war to pro-tect our national ideals andprinciples, judge advocatesand paralegals were there sac-rificing and making indispens-able contributions. And, forjudge advocates and parale-gals who will face the chal-lenges of future deployments,comfort and confidence re-sides in the knowledge that

others have gone before, con-fronted their fears and re-sponsibilities, and have suc-ceeded.

Then there is the law. Theevolution of the UniformCode of Military Justice, theManual for Courts-Martial,and the practice of militarycriminal law is well docu-mented within the walls of theHeritage Room. Changing asit did from a simple tool of dis-cipline to a well respected sys-tem of criminal justice, theMilitary Justice system hasgone through many modifica-tions. The ability to siftthrough the legal history con-tained in the publications inthe Heritage Room and to re-view the changes in our lawfrom as far back as the 1917Manual, would be an oppor-tunity no student of militaryjustice could long ignore. Infact, the handwritten notes inthe legal texts of some of ourmost well known judge advo-cates can provide unparal-leled insight into the opera-tion and development of oursystem of criminal law.

In just a few descriptiveparagraphs the tremendousvalue of the Heritage Roombegins to emerge. But, totruly comprehend the impor-tance of the Heritage Room re-quires a visit – an extendedvisit. Taking a walk aroundthe Heritage Room is like tak-ing a journey through the his-tory of our Department. Thelonger one stays in the Heri-tage Room the more one will

learn. Nothing else in the De-partment can offer the oppor-tunity to get this close to ourorigins and our purpose. Forall members of our Depart-ment, there could be no bet-ter way to learn about the AirForce Judge AdvocateGeneral’s Department. CMSGt Swigonski�s

uniform and memorabilia.


By far the biggest support from the Foundation comes inthe form of financial support for numerous symposia and inthe form of honoraria paid to nationally recognized speakersenabling them to lecture at JAG School courses. Includedamong the yearly symposia topics were civil rights, environ-mental issues in armed conflict, the role of the military in Ameri-can society, the military justice system under media scrutinyand current issues in federal sector healthcare law. Support toJAG School courses has run the gamut from bringing an ex-pert on testimony of children to address the Interservice Mili-tary Judges’ Seminar to funding nationally recognized speak-ers for the Advanced Labor and Employment Law Course, theAdvanced Trial Advocacy Course and the Legal Aspects of

Information Warfare Symposium. In addition, the Foundationhas always been ready to support special events like hostingMedia Day for noted journalists, including Peter Jennings ofABC News; speaking engagements by the British and Aus-tralian TJAGs; and outreach programs of the Air Force Courtof Criminal Appeals and the United States Court of Appealsfor the Armed Services.

At its heart, the Foundation is much more than just a sourceof financial support for legal education. Rather, it embodiesthe unique connection shared between past, present and fu-ture members of The Judge Advocate General’s Department.Participation of retired judge advocates, civilian attorneys andparalegals in the financial and administrative support of theFoundation reflects a continuing dedication to the Depart-ment and provides active duty members with a sense of fam-ily. Nurturing this special relationship, the Foundation pro-vides all new judge advocate and paralegal graduates occu-pational badges formally welcoming them to the Department.Recently, the Foundation hosted a reception for a JASOC classafter the Honorable Ira DeMent, U.S. District Judge for theMiddle District of Alabama and a founding member of theJAG School Foundation, swore in several members of the classto the bars of several states. The Foundation also stronglysupports preservation of our Department’s history by provid-ing financial support to the JAG Heritage Room and to thisfiftieth anniversary edition of THE REPORTER. Perhaps MajorGeneral Norris said it best when he paraphrased the often-quoted Marine Corps adage “once a JAG, always a JAG.”

The JAG School Foundation stands as a proudpartner in the tradition of excellence of The JudgeAdvocate General School. Originally founded in1989, through the efforts of Major GeneralsRobert Norris and Ira DeMent, the Foundation

matured into its present form in August 1991. Contemporane-ous with the groundbreaking for the new JAG School, therewas broad-based support among active, reserve componentand retired judge advocates for the idea that establishing aprivate tax-exempt foundation that could accept tax deduct-ible donations could significantly enhance and enrich the le-gal education of the Department’s judge advocates, civilianattorneys and paralegals. Beginning with less than $2,000 in

the bank in 1992, the JAG School Foundation now managesan endowment of over $100,000. In January 1998, the Founda-tion President Brig Gen (Ret) Roger Jones inaugurated the“Millenium Campaign,” the stated goal of which is to increasethe endowment to $200,000 by the end of the year 2000.

In its short but vibrant history, the JAG School Foundationhas sponsored or provided financial support to a myriad ofactivities focused on curriculum enhancement and facultyenrichment. Beginning in 1994, the Foundation began payingfor JAG School faculty to attend the prestigious National In-stitute of Trial Advocacy Teacher Training Course ensuringthat advocacy training provided at the JAG School is secondto none. Furthering paralegal education, the Foundationfunded memberships for a limited number of paralegals in sev-eral national paralegal associations. As a direct result of thiseffort the National Federation of Paralegal Associations andAmerican Association of Paralegal Education have beguncollaborating with the JAG School on curriculum and accredi-tation issues.

Building on a Firm FoundationBRIGADIER GENERAL EDWARD F. RODRIGUEZ, JR.

MAJOR GUILLERMO R. CARRANZA

Brig General Edward F. Rodriguez, Jr. (B.S., GeorgetownUniversity; J.D., University of Texas at Austin) is Vice Presi-dent and General Counsel of Mitretek Systems, Inc. and servesas the Mobilization Augmentee to the Deputy Judge Advo-cate General. He is a member of the Virginia Bar.

Major Guillermo R. Carranza (B.A. and J.D., Tulane Univer-sity) is an instructor in the Civil Law Division of the AirForce Judge Advocate General School and serves as the li-aison to The JAG School Foundation, Inc. He is a member ofthe Florida Bar.

~ Man�s Flight Through Life is Sustained By ThePower Of His Knowledge


I’ve been asked to describe the his-tory of this legendary group of croon-ers. How can one catch a shooting star?One can only try.

Like most of the superstar groups ofthe Rock-and-Roll era, JAG-Na-Nastarted out modestly and under anothername.2 The year is 1984. The place isthe Air Force Judge Advocate GeneralSchool at Maxwell AFB. The call goesout for a special program on seat beltsafety for Leadership, Management and

JAG-NA-NA: THE LEGEND LIVES

COLONEL THOMAS G. BECKER

Development Center (LMDC)Commander’s Call. The JAG School fac-ulty responded, under the creative handof then-Major (now Lt Colonel retired)Mark Magness, forming the JAG SchoolAll Jug Band (or was it the Jug School

The RivetingStory of theMeteoric Rise ofthe Group thatBrought Back theGolden GloriousSounds of theFifties and Sixties

It seems only yesterday that I was looking at a bunch of great-looking guys in poplin jackets, rolled up polyester pants, whitesocks, and black oxfords�the group known to their tens offans everywhere as JAG-Na-Na. In fact, it was yesterday.1

Colonel Becker (B.A. and J.D.,Washburn University; LL.M., GeorgeWashingon) is the Staff Judge Advocateat Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, OC-ALC. Heis a member of the Kansas State Bar.

Shooting Stars?!!! (left to right) Dave Pearson, Tom Becker, Mark Magness, Mike Powell, Bill Lockwood,Al Passey, Dave Hoard, G-rd-n Wi-d-r

Photo courtesy of Colonel Thomas Becker


All JAG Band? I forget). Doing num-bers inspired by no less than the likesof Boxcar Willy and Slim Whitman,3 wewere a big hit. In fact, we were invitedfor a special performance at the Air Uni-versity commander’s staff meeting.4 Asartists, however, we soon became dis-enchanted with trying to come up withone cutting-edge hit after another, sowe returned to our Rock-and-Roll roots.Thus came JAG-Na-Na, which debutedat another LMDC Commander’s Call de-voted to seat belt safety. We ranonstage to the sounds of “Dead Man’sCurve,” immediately following a first-person narrative about the loss of lovedones because they didn’t wear seatbelts. Talk about a rollicking good time.

Again under the leadership of MarkMagness, JAG-Na-Na explored theworlds of Rock-and-Roll andAir Force JAG, pushing theartistic envelope and mergingour music with our profes-sional lives as lawyers and AirForce officers.5 This creativeprocess produced such hitsas our tribute to Air Force de-fenders “The ADC’s Back,”6

our ode to the JAX assign-ment process “In the Still ofLate December,”7 and our sig-nature best seller “The Ballad of Run-around Johanns.”8 Other crowdpleasers included our special tribute toa retiring Air University commander“Get a Job” and the sentimental favor-ite of many a graduation dinner “Good-bye JASOC.”9 And, of course, our rep-ertoire retained our original seat beltsafety medley of “My Belt”10 and “SeatBelt.”11 The lyrics for all of these soon-to-be standards came from MarkMagness.

“But first, let me introduce the group.. . .” These words opened nearly everyJAG-Na-Na performance and, after weintroduced ourselves to one another, wesang. So, it’s appropriate here to tellyou about the artists that graced thestage as members of JAG-Na-Na. Be-sides Mark Magness and me, the full-time members were Major (now Colo-nel) Al Passey, Lt Colonel (now retired)Mike Powell, Lt Colonel (now Colonelretired) Bill Lockwood, Captain DavePearson (also now retired), Captain (now

Lt Colonel, USAFR) Dave Hoard, andone other member, now a senior civilianmember of TJAG’s Department who hasasked me to disguise his identity andpresent position.12

When a permanent member was un-available,13 we sometimes pressed otherJAGs into service, to include MajorJohn Heinz (also a retired JAG) andMajor (now Colonel) Scott McLauthlin.In the storied history of JAG-Na-Na,only one aspirant was rejected after anaudition—Major Darrell Phillips (nowMr. Darrell Phillips, still of the JAGSchool faculty). After a memorable dis-play of choreographic skill,14 Darrell wastold “don’t call us . . . ever.”

As with any of the legendary groups,JAG-Na-Na couldn’t have reached theheights of musical stardom without the

little people behind the scenes. Major(now Colonel retired) Maggie Schreierdid our audio technical support and of-ten got it right. Lt Colonel (now Colo-nel retired) Pete Rogers handled ourpublicity until he started booking en-tertainment packages for river cruises.15

Finally, the JAG School Commandant,Colonel Charles Edwards, always madesure our audience was supplied withfresh vegetables.

JAG-Na-Na’s farewell performancewas at Air Command and Staff Collegein the spring of 1987. From there, thegroup disbanded and went on to othercreative pursuits. A reunion tour ofnorthern tier Air Force bases was con-sidered in the mid-nineties but, for somereason, never got off the ground.16 Butto all who witnessed the phenomenonthat was JAG-Na-Na, the legend liveson. And to all our fans, we say onemore time . . .Thank You, Music Lovers!!!!

1 I still have my picture of JAG-Na-Naposed on Colonel (Retired) Pete Rogers’white ’57 Ford T-bird outside whatused be called the LMDC Building, thenhome of the AFJAG School at MaxwellAFB, Alabama.2 Toward the end, we were all usingassumed names, but we won’t burdenyou with that story.3 Of course, we didn’t know it at thetime, but we created what is now knownas the “L.A. (Lower Alabama) Sound.”4 We weren’t ever invited back. He wasnot a patron of the arts.5 We also tried our hand at invention,but the best thing we came up with wasthe JAG School Air Bag Tie. It didn’tcatch on.6 Sung to the tune of “My Boyfriend’sBack.”7 “In the Still of the Night.”8 “Runaround Sue.” See United Statesv. Johanns, 17 M.J. 862 (A.F.C.M.R.

1983), affirmed 20 M.J. 155(C.M.A. 1985).9 “Good Night,Sweetheart.” This lastnumber was especiallyknown for the moving mid-song narration by MajorMagness, in which themembers of JAG-Na-Nawished the departingstudents well by a vote offive to four.10 “My Girl.”

11 “Blue Moon.”12 H. G-rd-n Wi-d-r, Chief of HQ USAF/J-G.13 Leave, TDY, or under investigation.14 Recall Steve Martin in the openingscene of “The Jerk.” Enough said.Editor�s note: Mr. Phillips disputesthis alleged fact. He recalls that not onlywas he accepted into the hallowed ranksof JAG-Na-Na, but he and the unnamed“senior civilian member” were routinelyrelied upon for unintended comic relief.15 This is a very inside joke. Those whoget it know who they are. Everyoneelse, just forget I said anything.16 Our planned tour included LoringAFB, Pease AFB, Griffiss AFB,Wurtsmith AFB, and K.I. Sawyer AFB.We never heard anything back fromthese bases and received no responsefrom SAC Headquarters, so we droppedthe plans from lack of interest.

The JAG SchoolCommandant,

always made sure ouraudience was suppliedwith fresh vegetables


U

Since its official designation on 25 January 1949, the AirForce Judge Advocate General’s Department has been respon-sible for the administration of military justice in the UnitedStates Air Force. This article will focus on significant changesthat occurred over the past fifty years that enhanced the fair-ness and efficiency of our military justice system and impactedhow we, as a Department, administer that system.

When the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Departmentcame into existence, each service had its own system of jus-tice. The Army operated under the Articles of War and theNavy and Marines operated under the Articles for the Gov-ernment of the Navy.1 On 25 June 1948, Congress passed anAct that made Air Force personnel subject to the Articles ofWar. The Air Force subsequently adapted the Manual forCourts-Martial (MCM), U.S. Army, 1949, for use in courts-martial involving its personnel. 2

Under the Articles of War and the 1949 MCM, a judge didnot preside over Air Force courts-martial. Instead, the seniormember or President of the court, who usually was not a law-yer, ran the court. Another officer who was assigned to theJudge Advocate General’s Department or who was a lawyerwould be detailed to the court as a voting law member with theadditional responsibilities of rendering advice on questionsof law and procedure. On a few courts, the law member wouldbecome the senior member or President and fulfill both roles.3

On these early Air Force courts, counsel appointed to theprosecution and defense, and the President presiding overthe court, did not have to be lawyers.4 Additionally, appealswere not made to appellate courts but to a Board of Review inthe Office of the Judge Advocate General.5

Uniform Justice. While the Air Force began trying cases and admin- istering its own justice system, there was a movement

afoot to develop a uniform system of discipline for all mem-bers of the Armed Forces. This push for uniformity stemmedfrom the unification of the services in 1947 and from publiccriticisms of military justice citing abuses during World War

Sharpening the Sword of JusticeMAJOR KEITH R. ALICH

II, including harsh punishments and due process violations.The public debate on military justice included complaints fromprivate citizens and veterans groups as well as the AmericanBar Association which advocated inclusion of enlisted mem-bers on court-martial panels and removing the power to con-vene courts from the province of the commander. This climateeventually resulted in Secretary of Defense James Forrestalcreating a committee to study the integration of the militaryjustice systems of the different services and to create a sys-tem to promote public confidence and protect the rights ofservice members without impeding the military function. Af-ter months of study, the committee introduced proposed leg-islation to Congress that resulted in the enactment of the Uni-form Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 United States Code,Sections 801 to 940, on 5 May 1950.6 The Manual for Courts-Martial, which consists of rules promulgated by the Presidentto implement the UCMJ, became effective on 31 May 1951.

The newly enacted UCMJ and MCM applied to all branchesof the Armed Services. The UCMJ contained a number of far-reaching changes from past practices that enhanced the fair-ness of the military justice system for all Services. While theUCMJ still permitted commanders to convene courts, Article37, UCMJ, prohibited the convening authority from influenc-ing the court and Article 98, UCMJ, made unlawful influenceof a court-martial a crime. Article 25, UCMJ, further enhancedfairness by authorizing an enlisted accused to request a court-martial panel of at least one-third enlisted members. OtherArticles in the UCMJ added new requirements for lawyers incourts-martial. For example, Article 27, UCMJ, provided thattrial counsel and appointed defense counsel on all generalcourts-martial must be qualified lawyers. Articles 26 and 51,UCMJ, replaced the “law member” with a non-voting “lawofficer” that no longer accompanied the voting members in

Major Alich (B.A., Miami University; J.D., Northern Ken-tucky University) is the Chief of Policy and Precedent, AirForce Legal Services Agency, Military Law Division, BollingAir Force Base, D.C. He is a member of the Ohio Bar.

Though the past may inspire us, it is the challenge of the future thatmust motivate us. And a tremendous challenge does exist ... Ourmilitary justice system must be preserved, for no military organiza-tion can survive without such a system. That is not to say that allchange in the system must be resisted. On the contrary, we mustconstantly seek to improve it and to achieve changes that will makeit responsive to the needs of the military service.


S

closed sessions. Instead, the law officer acted as a judge inmaking final rulings on motions and instructing members onthe elements of offenses, burden of proof, and the presump-tion of innocence.

The newly enacted UCMJ also enhanced the fairness of themilitary justice system above the trial level by establishing aBoard of Review for each Service7 and by creating a Court ofMilitary Appeals, with appointed civilian judges with 15 yearterms.8 By creating the Court of Military Appeals, Congressestablished a degree of civilian control over the military and acheck on command control that did not previously exist. Inaddition, by giving the civilian judges lengthy terms, Con-gress enabled the judges to gain over time a fully developedunderstanding of the distinctive problems and legal traditionsof the Armed Forces.9

Subsequent changes. After adoption of the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts-Martial, public criticism of the military justice

system declined. The next significant development that im-pacted how we conducted military justice occurred in 1968.Article 26, UCMJ, was amended to eliminate the law officerand to establish a military judge to preside over open ses-sions of courts-martial. In addition, Article 16, UCMJ, wasamended to give the accused the option of requesting trial bymilitary judge alone. Judge alone trials increased the involve-ment of lawyers in courts-martial and such trials typically re-

sulted in more expeditious cases since voir dire, instructionsand other member-related matters were not required. Lawyerinvolvement was also increased in another area. The impor-tance of having qualified counsel for an accused on more thangeneral courts-martial was reflected in a 1968 amendment toArticle 27, UCMJ. This amendment required qualified defensecounsel on special courts-martial unless this could not beaccomplished due to physical conditions or military exigen-cies.

While considerable strides were made to ensure fairness inthe military justice system, concerns remained over themilitary’s separate system of justice, as evidenced by the Su-preme Court’s decision in O’Callahan v. Parker.1 0 The Courtstated “the justification for such a system rests on the specialneeds of the military, and history teaches that expansion ofmilitary discipline beyond its proper domain carries with it athreat to liberty.”1 1 The Court held that unless an offense isclearly service-connected the military has no authority to trythe case.1 2 The Court set aside the general court-martial con-viction of a soldier for raping a woman while he was off-baseand off-duty in Hawaii. While O’Callahan limited the military’sjurisdiction, subsequent decisions by the Supreme Court andthe Court of Military Appeals, found disciplinary interests ina broad range of civilian offenses, thereby limiting the appli-cation of O’Callahan.1 3

The military justice system continued to evolve in the 1970s.A significant milestone for the Air Force was the creation

A Deadly Footnote to the UCMJ

I n 1953, Article II of the UCMJ provided for court-martial jurisdiction over military dependents overseas. It was then that Mrs. Clarice Covert, dependent wife of Air Force Warrant Officer Edward Covert (Note: The AF had Warrant Officers

then) was tried before a general court-martial for the premeditated murder of her husband. The Coverts lived in Britishmilitary housing on RAF Station Upper Heyford, England, and the trial was held at RAF Station Brize Norton. It lasted five days.The accused was found guilty.Briefly, the facts were that Mrs. Covert killed her husband as he slept. She used a hatchet issued to occupants of British

military housing for chopping kindling wood to start a fire in the kitchen stove. Mrs. Covert attacked her husband about theface and head as he slept. She then placed a pillow over his head and made up the bed with her dead victim in it.The next morning at an appointment with her doctor who said to her, “Good morning Mrs. Covert. How are you today?” she

responded, “Not so good. I killed Eddie last night.”The Court of Military Appeals (COMA) review upholding the finding is reported in the red volumes of COMA decisions (19

C.M.R. 174 (1955); 16 C.M.R. 465 (1953)). It was appealed to the Supreme Court which on or about 1955/6 at its spring termdid not overturn the findings. However, because Justice Frankfurter at that time had resersed his opinion, the Court subse-quently in its October term of that year, reconsidered the case and reversed its prior decision. In doing so the Court held thatthe portion of Article II, UCMJ, giving the military court-martial jurisdiction over dependent civilians overseas was unconsti-tutional—at least in peacetime.Until the Court’s decision set her free, Mrs. Covert was confined in the Women’s Federal Reformatory, Allentown, Pennsyl-

vania. The Assistant Trial Counsel was First Lieutenant James Haught, now deceased and Colonel (retired) of Springfield, VA.The Trial Counsel was First Lieutenant Everett Hopson, now Colonel (retired), of Fairfax, VA, and a Trustee of the AF JAGSchool Foundation. Defense Counsel was former Major George Switzer of Columbus, Mississippi. The Law Officer wasformer Captain Charles Denham from southern Illinois.

A Post Script: When the Trial Counsel delivered the accused’s copy of the record of trial to her in confinement, shestated to him, “Why Lieutenant Hopson, aren’t you afraid to come near to me? You know I am perfectly capable of killing you.The court just said I am.”

(By Colonel Everett G. Hopson, Ret.)


M

of the Area Defense Counsel Program. It was initiated as atest program throughout the First Circuit on 1 January 1974and implemented worldwide on 1 July 1974. Under this pro-gram, judge advocates performing duties as defense counselwere reassigned from their present field command (Office ofthe Staff Judge Advocate) to the Appellate Defense Divisionof the Office of the Judge Advocate General, with a duty loca-tion, in most cases, at their present base of assignment. TheChief of the Appellate Defense Division had overall profes-sional supervisory responsibility and was the indorsing of-ficer. This program, by separating the defense counsel fromthe traditional staff judge advocate function, enhanced theactual and apparent stature of defense counsel and judicialfunctions throughout the Air Force. It enabled judge advo-cates performing defense duties to gain the confidence oftheir clients by virtue of their position as independent de-fense counsel.1 4

The 1980s brought changes in how we conduct courts-martial and administer the cases. In 1980, the MCM wasamended to include new Military Rules of Evidence. The newrules were for the most part adoptions of the Federal Rules ofEvidence with variations to accommodate specialized militarypractices and terms. Adoption of these evidentiary rulesbrought the military justice system more in alliance with thefederal criminal justice system.1 5 Additional change came inthe 1983 Military Justice Act. It modified the selection pro-cess for counsel and judges and abbreviated the contents forpretrial advice and post-trial recommendation.1 6 The follow-ing year, the 1984 edition of the Manual for Courts-Martialwas published. The 1984 edition included a substantial reor-ganization of the manual from the prior editions. It was for-matted to include five parts (Preamble, Rules for Courts-Mar-tial, Military Rules of Evidence, Punitive Articles, and Nonju-dicial Punishment) followed by appendices that includeddrafter analysis and forms.

Media Spotlight. The next milestone occurred in 1987 when the U.S. Supreme Court re-examined court-martial jurisdic-

tion over military members. The Court, in Solorio v. UnitedStates,1 7 overruled O’Callahan’s service-connection require-ment and permitted jurisdiction based on military status. TheCourt held that if a person is on active duty when committing

an offense, the military has jurisdiction over that person. De-spite the broadened jurisdiction, the military justice systemremained relatively free from public criticism and scrutiny un-til the high visibility media cases of the past few years involv-ing adultery and other sexual misconduct. While attentionhas again been drawn toward military justice, it appears un-likely that significant changes in the system will occur as aresult of these cases.

As we move into our next fifty years of existence, the AirForce Judge Advocate General’s Department will continue toparticipate in making and implementing changes that will en-hance fairness and efficiency of our military justice system.Proposals are currently being examined for an independentjudiciary, the court member selection process, and increasingthe maximum confinement authorized in special courts-martialto one year. Action on these and other proposals may verymuch shape how we, as a Department, handle courts-martialin the future.

1 Walter T. Cox, III, The Army, the Courts, and the Constitution: TheEvolution of Military Justice, Military Law Review, Vol. 118 (1987). 2 Manual for Courts-Martial, U.S. Air Forces, 1949, Preface, pageix. 3 Id., Secs 4, 39, and 40. 4 Id., Secs 41 and 43. 5 Id., Secs 95 and 96; See also, Hodgson, History of Air Force AppellateCourts, this edition of The Reporter. 6 Cox, Supra note 1. 7 Article 66, UCMJ. Boards of Review were substituted by Courtsof Military Review as the reviewing authority in the 1968 amendmentto Article 66 and were renamed Courts of Military Appeals in the1996 amendment. 8 Article 67, UCMJ. 9 Noyd v. Bond, 395 U.S. 738, 758 (1975). 10 395 U.S. 258 (1969). 11 Id., 395 U.S. at 265. 12 Id., 395 U.S. at 272. 13 See Relford v. Commandant, 401 U.S. 355 (1971) (on-post offenses)and United States v. Beeker, 40 C.M.R. 275 (1969) (off-post drugoffenses). 14 AFJAG Reporter 1973/8; See also, Norton, History of the AreaDefense Counsel Program, this edition of The Reporter. 15 David A. Schlueter, Military Criminal Justice, (1987), Sec 15.21. 16 Articles 7, 26, 27, and 60, UCMJ. 17 483 U.S. 435(1987).

DOONESBURY © G.B. Trudeau. Reprinted with permission of UNIVERSAL PRESSSYNDICATE. All rights reserved.


You Are Known By

The Company You KeepMilitary Justice Joins The Mainstream

COLONEL PATRICK B. O’BRIEN, RETIRED

During 1991, there was aquiet change in militarylaw which has turnedinto one of the moresignificant develop-

ments in military justice since the en-actment of the Uniform Code of Mili-tary Justice (UCMJ) on May 5, 1950.

From 1978, when the Military JusticeReporter (MJ) first appeared, until 1991,our research disclosed only one re-ported Supreme Court decision (notcounting memorandums) of a militarycase.1 Since 1991, the High Court hasissued six more decisions in militarycases. Until the Court’s 1994 decisionin Davis v. United States,2

the only

cases reported in the MJ that ever madeit to the Supreme Court dealt with capi-tal punishment or with the jurisdictionor composition of military tribunals.3 Intwo recent instances, however, the Su-preme Court has picked cases out ofthe military justice system to addressissues of general interest to aficiona-dos of criminal law.4 In 1991, aWESTLAW search disclosed only ninecases in the Federal Circuit Courts ofAppeal that cited the Military JusticeReporter.5 There are now more thanfifty.

The 1983 change to the UCMJ pro-viding for a writ of certiorari to the UnitedStates Court of Appeals for the Armed

Colonel O’Brien (B.A., Holy CrossCollege; LL.B. Fordham UniversitySchool of Law) has served as the Se-nior Staff Attorney of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for Veterans Claims(formerly, the United States Court ofVeterans Appeals), since his retirementas the Chief Judge of the Air ForceCourt of Military Review in 1992.

Not only was I notenthralled by the oldBoard of Reviewopinions and digest,with their inadequateindices, but I did a lot ofcomplaining about it tosenior officers of thelegal Department of theArmy, not dreaming thatI would ever be in aposition to do anythingabout it.

However, ... the daycame when I was in sucha position and realizingthe importance of pre-serving for the edifica-tion of future genera-tions the gems of wis-dom we weredispensing at that time,I decided to develop areporting system similarto those familiar tolawyers in the civiliancommunity.

~ Major General ReginaldC. Harmon

Forces from the Supreme Court6 isclearly responsible for some of the in-creased attention military cases havereceived from our highest court. It doesnot, however, explain the significant in-crease in the numbers of military casesnow cited authoritatively in the othercourts.

Much of this increase, I believe, re-sults from the July 1991 decision by boththe West Publishing Company andMeade Data Corporation, publishers ofWESTLAW and LEXIS respectively, toput all military cases into theirALLFEDS and GENFED databases. Pre-viously, accessing military cases re-quired that you not only knew they ex-isted but also knew where to look forthem. In WESTLAW, for instance, youhad to select the “military law” data-base, then “case law,” then “MJ Mili-tary Justice Cases.” A WESTLAWALLFEDS search of cases interpretingthe Supreme Court’s opinion in Coy v.Iowa,7 (and the limitations that could beplaced on a defendant father’s right toconfront his allegedly abused daugh-ter during her testimony), would havefound ten cases in the District and Cir-cuit Courts. It would, however, not havefound United States v. Thompson,8 anAir Force case that explored this sub-ject in detail.

Since that 1991 decision by West andMeade Data, any search of theirALLFEDS or GENFED will capture themilitary court cases as well as those fromthe civilian courts. As a result, we nowsee the United States Court of Appealsfor the Sixth Circuit, in a case havingabsolutely nothing to do with the mili-tary, citing an Air Force Court of Crimi-nal Appeals decision as an authorita-tive interpretation of a federal statute.9


This is a far cry from earlier timeswhen our decisions went largely unno-ticed by the civilian bench and bar, orwere, at best, regarded as a juristic “sideshow” not worthy of serious consider-ation. The inclusion of our military casesinto the same databases which containthe decisions of the Article III estab-lishment recognizes the legitimacy andimportance of our jurisprudence. It alsoensures that our precedents will be in-cluded in the results of any serious re-search of Federal case law dealing withcriminal law and procedure.

The first steps toward this integra-tion of military case law into the legalmainstream occurred in January of 1991,when Chief Judge Eugene R. Sullivanof the U.S. Court of Appeals for theArmed Forces led an expedition10 to theWest Publishing Company headquar-ters. He attempted to persuade Westnot only to include our decisions intheir ALLFEDS database but also to in-tegrate our headnotes into its overallkey number system rather than into thesegregated (and largely useless) Mili-tary Justice numbers. West’s publisherpromised to study these proposals.These issues were repeatedly raisedwith West by correspondence and atassociation events and conferences.Then, in July of 1991, LEXIS agreed toinclude military cases in their GENFEDdatabase. Immediately thereafter Westfollowed suit. (The following year Westagreed to a dual classification ofheadnotes on limited bases in both the

military and constitutional law key-notes.)

Any reflection on the five most sig-nificant milestones during the fifty yearsthat have elapsed since the enactmentof the UCMJ and the creation of theUnited States Court of Appeals for theArmed Forces would have to include:(1) The creation of the service Courtsof Criminal Appeals in 1968; (2) The ar-rival of the military judge, also in 1968;(3) Adoption of the Military Rules ofEvidence in 1979; (4) Direct appeal tothe Supreme Court in 1983; and (5) In-clusion of military cases into the samedatabases as the other federal cases in1991. While the first four significantlyimproved the quality of the military jus-tice system, the fifth went a long way to“lift the bushel”11 and expose our lightto the rest of the profession.

1. Solorio v. United States, 483 U.S.435, 107 S.Ct. 2924 (1987). BeforeSolorio, there were, of course, numer-ous cases dealing with the jurisdictionof courts-martial, principallyO’Callahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258, 89S.Ct. 1683, 23 L.Ed.2d 291(1969), and thecases cited therein. 2. 512 U.S. 452, 114 S.Ct. 2350. 3. Such as Solorio, supra note 1, andthe cases cited therein, as well asEdmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651,117 S.Ct. 1573, 137 L.Ed.2d 917 (1997);Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748,116 S.Ct. 1737, 135 L.Ed.2d 36 (1996);Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177, 115

S.Ct. 2031, 132 L.Ed.2d 136 (1995); Weissv. United States, 510 U.S. 163, 114 S.Ct.752, 127 L.Ed.2d 1 (1994). 4. United States v. Scheffer, 118 S.Ct.1261 (1998) (admissibility of polygraphevidence); Davis v. United States, 512U.S. 452, 114 S.Ct. 2350 (1994) (right tocounsel during custodial interrogation). 5. Decisions of the United States Courtof Appeals for the Armed Forces, (for-merly the United States Court of Mili-tary Appeals) and the Service Courtsof Criminal Appeals (formerly theCourts of Military Review) have beenpublished in West’s Military JusticeReporter (MJ) since 1978. Before thatthey were published by Lawyers Co-Op in the Court Martial Reports (CMR).This article refers only to the MilitaryJustice Reporter. 6. 28 U.S.C. 1259. 7. 487 U.S. 1012, 110 S.Ct. 2798, 101L.Ed.2d 857 (1988). 8. 29 M.J. 541 (AFCMR, 1989). 9. United States v. Thomas, 74 F3d 701,708,709 (6th Cir. 1995). 10. Judge Sullivan was accompanied byhis then-associate judge, now-ChiefJudge Walter T. Cox, III and ColonelPatrick B. O’Brien who was then-ChiefJudge of the Air Force Court of Crimi-nal Appeals (then the Air Force Courtof Military Review). 11. “No man, when he hath lighted acandle, putteth it in a secret place, nei-ther under a bushel, but on a candle-stick, that they which come in may seethe light.” Luke 11:33.

During those times [1948 serving as a Judicial Council member], allof us in the office knew we were faced with a challenge. There weremany who just knew that The Judge Advocate General�s Departmentof the Air Force would fall flat on its face; there were too few officerswith too little experience to get the job done. As I remember therewere only forty-six judge advocate officers on the original list oftransfers from the Army, and none had served on a Board of Review.All of us working in the Pentagon Office carried home two briefcasesfull of work every night....we worked Saturdays, and we accomplishedwhat many knew just couldn�t be done.

~ Major General Albert M. Kuhfeld


The Start of the Trial JudiciaryCOLONEL CARL ABRAMS, RETIRED

Colonel Abrams (B.A. and J.D., University of West Virginia)retired from the Air Force in 1980 and currently enjoys bicy-cling, traveling, and snorkeling. He is a member of the WestVirginia and District of Columbia Bars.

But first let us returnto those days of yesteryear when

military judges were law of-ficers and they normallyworked directly for the com-mand that convened thecourt. As a base staff judgeadvocate (SJA) in 15th andthen 8th AF, I was constantlygoing TDY to other baseswithin the command to sit aslaw officer. My work appar-ently endeared me to thegeneral court-martial con-vening authority SJA, butdid little to help my relation-ship with my rating officer,the base commander, as Iwas usually unavailablewhen he needed me. In practice, however, thesystem worked well. I neverfelt pressured by the con-vening authority and neverencountered another law of-ficer who felt differently. Inperception, however, thesystem needed to bechanged. It was very diffi-cult to convince the ac-cused, the media and thepublic that an accused couldget a fair trial when the judgeand defense counsel workedfor the commander who con-vened the court. In 1968, we were excitedby the thought that thiswould soon change. By thistime I was a member of thethen-Air Force Board of Re-view. (We were located on

Bolling above the commis-sary in the building that nowhouses the OSI.) I had theprivilege of being able togive input to the group writ-ing the new Manual forCourts-Martial. Then, in April 1969, Colo-nel William Kenney and Iwere appointed as the firstmembers of the new TrialJudiciary. Although the newcode was not to take effectuntil August 1st, commandsin the eastern United Stateswere instructed that onlyone of the two trial judiciaryofficers (TJOs) would beappointed by them as lawofficers on general courts-martial (GCMs). This did notsit well with many seniorSJAs who felt that we wereusurping their authority toname whom they pleased ontheir courts. Our next step was to de-termine how many judgeswe would need to handle theGCMs and where to putthem. We divided the worldinto four major circuits; somefurther sub-divided into re-gions. Analyzing the GCMsthat were convened in 1967and 1968, we estimated that14 judges would be suffi-cient. It turned out that weweren’t totally accurate; in1971 when the two judges inEurope were ready to rotatestateside, I was the sole re-placement for both of them,

thanks to the happy circum-stance of fewer trials than wehad predicted. Unfortu-nately, cases picked up aftermy arrival and in 1973 I wasgone 278 days either travel-ling or presiding on courts!My wife was less thanthrilled and referred to ourquarters as “Carl’s LaundryStop.” The next step was select-ing the officers to fill thesepositions. The first militaryjudges, in addition to the twoof us, were Colonels WilliamGobrecht, Roy Adcock, and

James Thorn; LieutenantColonels Karl Stephens,Russell Stanley, ThomasConnolly, Edgar McHugh,Cornell Degrothy, FrancisMurray, Allan Smith, HaroldGardner, and Joe Peck. I recall my pleasure inlearning that on 1 August1969 I would try the first caseunder the new manual andrevised code. As it was tobe held at Hanscom Field,Massachussets, duringschool vacation, I took myfamily along. My three chil-dren sat in as spectators so

Job one. (center) Law officer conferring with counsel in1965 general court-martial; (top right) Moot court JASOC75-B participants: Lt Col Arrowood (judge), Capt M. Jointer(ct. reporter), Capt J. Oxley (accused), Capt T. O�Brien (DC),Capt L. Mead (TC), Capt B. Jaynes (witness), and (membersleft to right) Capts F. Pedrotty, J. Sprink, D. Fulton, and T.Hargrove, III.


they could witness the his-toric event. Being theblowhard I am, I could notresist addressing the panelbefore the beginning of thetrial so they would be awareof this momentous occasion.As I spoke, the swivel chairI occupied slid backwards.There was no lip at the endof the platform. Togetherwith the chair, I tumbleddown three steps, landingsplat on the floor in front ofthe panel. As I tried to re-cover my lost dignity, I or-dered three hysterical chil-dren out of the courtroom.To this day they won’t letme forget my moment of ig-nominy. Colonel Kenney decidedwe needed a newsletter tokeep the widely scatteredTJOs informed of develop-ments. Naturally, he del-egated the project to his onlysubordinate; me. I decidedto call it “The TJO Dicta” anddesigned a masthead. I felt

we needed a motto, “Havegavel; will travel” came tomind, but it was not digni-fied enough for a judicial rag.With the help of the ArmyHeraldic Division our mottohad more gravitus: “HabeoMalleum, Profisicar.”1

The most memorable trialon which I presided was U.S.v Captain Thomas Culver,2

which was not only memo-rable, but also strange! Cap-tain Culver, a judge advo-cate, while wearing his uni-form, lead a demonstration

Air Force Military Judges

The United States Air Force Trial Judiciary was established in 1968 when the 1968Manual for Courts-Martial was promulgated. In the 31 years since then, the TrialJudiciary has evolved to its current form. The Air Force Chief Trial Judge and hisDeputy are assigned to the Trial Judiciary Division of the Air Force Legal ServicesAgency, Bolling Air Force Base, Washington D.C. There are 19 full-time active dutymilitary judges stationed at the five Judiciary Circuits. There are three Circuits in thecontinental United States, headquartered at Bolling AFB, Randolph AFB, TX, andTravis AFB, CA, each with five judges assigned. Designated as the Eastern, Central,and Western Circuits respectively, these Circuits provide military judges along geo-graphical lines. The Eastern Circuit is comprised of bases east of the Mississippi andthose in Panama, the Western Circuit is comprised of bases west of the Rockies andthose in Alaska, the Central Circuit is comprised of bases between the Eastern andWestern Circuits. The European Circuit has two military judges assigned and is head-quartered at Ramstein AB, Germany; it is comprised of the bases in Europe, Turkey,Southwest Asia, Iceland, and the Azores. The Pacific Circuit has two military judgesassigned and is headquartered at Yokota AB, Japan; it is comprised of the bases inAsia and Hawaii. In addition to the active duty military judges, there are five Reservemilitary judges who try Air Force courts-martial. These “citizen-soldiers” are eitherstate trial judges or federal administrative law judges in their civilian capacities. Each ofthese Reserve military judges will try about ten cases per year. For the past severalyears, Air Force courts-martial have numbered approximately 900-1000. Historically,the accused person elects trial by military judge alone in half of the cases.

(By Colonel Michael B. McShane)

through Hyde Park to theU.S. Embassy in London todeliver a petition calling forthe end of the war in Viet-nam. He was tried at RAFLakenheath in 1971. It wascovered by most major net-works, newspapers and a


large, distinctly unfriendlygallery of spectators in whiteT-shirts decorated withblack, upraised fists. My fa-vorite memory is of CaptainCulver, having taken thestand in his own behalf, tell-ing the court of his near-death experience when hewas hiding under hisgirlfriend’s bed during theTet offensive. He told how,after several days, he wasrescued by his best friendwho risked his life to comelook for him. Culver pauseddramatically, looked at thecourt panel, and said, “Anddo you know who it was whosaved my life? It is that son-of-a-@@##** Frank Lunawho is prosecuting thiscase!” Culver was con-victed and cashiered.

3 He

stayed on in England andappeared frequently beforeme as individual defensecounsel. I served as a Military TrialJudge for five years. Theywere the most challengingand rewarding yearsof my career. From thebench I went back tobeing a staff judge ad-vocate, this time for9th Air Force. Then,in July 1977 I wassworn in by MajorGeneral Vague as theChief Judge of TheCourt of Military Re-view. If you wanderthe corridors of thatcourt, you will findgroup pictures of thejudges over the years.Look closely at thepicture for 1977.... NoJudge Abrams. Why?Ah, but that is an-other story.

1 Translated as Havegavel; will travel.

Photo courtesy of Colonel Kirby Smith

2 U.S. v. Culver, 559 F.2d 622(D.C.Cir. 1977). More recentjudge advocate courts-martial are reported at; U.S.v. Trimper, 28 M.J. 460 (CMA1989); U.S. v. Nichols, 42 M.J.715 (AFCCA 1995); U.S. v.Cox (AFCCA 1996); U.S. v.Alis, 47 M.J. 817 (AFCCA1998).3 Dismissed.

(left to right fromtop) SheppardAFB ADC office,1995: Capts T.Uselt and D. Burkeand SrA C.Robinson; AFJAGScourtroom; S. Ct.admission: CaptsF. Majewski, J.Marcus, G. Smith,H. K. Smith, W.Garrick, Col M.Biddle, 1Lt J. Friel,Maj S. Kava, and1Lt A. Rifkin.

Photo courtesy of Captain Denise Burke


Humor in Blue UniformSubmitted by judge advocates worldwide (Names have been removed to protect the innocent...or isthat guilty?)

During my first assignment at Cannon “Cow Patch”(AFB), NM, in the early 80s, we had an aspiring robber

on the base. The airman, wearing a ski mask, robbed a placeduring his lunch break. Within minutes he was arrested at hisworkplace and couldn’t figure out how the police had solvedhis crime so quickly. Needless to say he was wearing his“fatigues” when he committed his robbery (with his name tagabove the pocket).

I was doing legal assistance at Spangdahlem AB whenan Army troop came in and said his First Sergeant had

told him he needed some paperwork filled out from legal. Iasked him what kind of paperwork. He said he couldn’t re-member exactly but it was either a “Before David” or an “AfterDavid.” I told him he probably needed an “After David” andthen we completed the affidavit.”

As a CTC, I prosecuted a guy at the late, unlamentedBlytheville AFB, AR, for robbing Billeting at knifepoint.

He wore a ski mask and an AF field jacket with a name on it. Itwasn’t his jacket, but the guy he borrowed it from didn’t hesi-tate to reveal to whom he had loaned it.

Ellsworth AFB had a courtroom in an old building slightlylarger than a broom closet. The witness stand was lo-

cated between the judge’s bench and the seating for the mem-bers. Right behind the witness stand was an old door with awindow that led to an old metal landing and fire escape. Dur-ing a hotly litigated court-martial on a cold South Dakota day,while a witness was being examined on the stand, the court-martial members, judge, and counsel were distracted by a bang-ing on the door right behind the witness, and a face beingpressed up against the window. It was a pizza delivery guywho didn’t care what was going on in the room - it was coldoutside, someone ordered a pizza, and he needed in. Thewitness had to wait while the pizza dude was convinced thathe couldn’t come in through that particular door and neededto find another way into the building.

After a long litigated trial on very serious charges, thecase (unfortunately from my perspective as a Circuit De-

fense Counsel representing the accused) entered the sentenc-ing phase. The defendant was potentially facing more than 20years confinement and the stakes were high. The defendant’smother suffered from narcolepsy. During my sentencing ar-gument in front of a packed courtroom, mom, who was sittingin the front row, fell asleep and began to snore loudly. Herdaughter frantically tried to wake her up, with only limitedsuccess. Unfortunately, the members didn’t know that themother was narcoleptic, so it was a rather uncomfortable mo-ment.

It’s 1992, and I’m defending an alleged shaken baby man-slaughter case. My client steadfastly denies all. The key

issue is time: how much had to pass between when the inju-ries were inflicted and when the baby started showing respira-tory distress. A short time meant it had to be my client. Longertime brought in his wife as a possible perp, longer still brought

in the babysitter and members of her family.Long case, “knock-down-dragout litigation,” starting at the

Article 32 and continuing over the months and into a week’sworth of trial, pitting experts against one another and, moreparticularly, me against the prime government expert, a pediat-ric neurologist (Dr. B). The tail end of my trial cross-examina-tion of Dr. B went like this:

Q: Dr. B, there’s never been any medical research on the timebetween a child suffers head injuries and when the child startsshowing distress, has there?A: No, there hasn’t, to my knowledge.Q: And you intend to conduct such a study yourself, don’tyou, Doctor?A: Yes, I do.Q: When it’s done, you hope to have your research pub-lished, isn’t that correct?A: That’s right.Q: And, if that study is published, it will be the very first onethat addresses the question of time between a child’s headinjuries and when the child starts showing symptoms, correct,Sir?A: That’s true.Q: Dr. B, isn’t it true that the reason you feel the need to dothis study is because of this case, the death of Baby X?A: Actually, Colonel Y, it’s because of you.

The client was found Not Guilty, which is, of course, theonly reason I’m relating this story. I usually don’t talk aboutthe cases I’ve lost.

In the late 70s there was a “drug bust” at Whiteman(allegedly the biggest “drug bust” in AF history) in which

about 5% of the base military population (250 or so out ofabout 5,000 on base) was implicated, resulting in dozens ofcourts and boards. As might be expected, some immunitieswere granted to obtain testimony. Toward the end of the stringof courts and boards in 1981, I (then a Captain we will call X)was involved in this interchange at a court:

Defense counsel (cross-examining a drug using airman whohad been given immunity): “Did anyone try to coerce youinto testifying here today?”

Witness: “Yes, Captain X did. He said he’d throw me in jailif I didn’t talk.”

Defense counsel: “Do you have an opinion about Air-man S’s reputation for telling the truth?”

Witness: “Do you mean, can I testify about his truth andvelocity? Yeah, I can do that.”

Long, drawn out, boring, judge alone trial, in which anenlisted man was accused of assaulting a lieutenant who

had “fingered” him in the drug bust. The Accused had bro-ken into the officer’s off-base apartment in the middle of thenight and beat the stuffings out of him. Witness for the pros-ecution was a female college student who lived just below thelieutenant, and whose apartment was configured the same.


Thus, her bedroom was just below the lieutenant’s, and she heardthe ruckus. Judge is (allegedly) having trouble staying awake onthe bench . . .

Trial counsel: “What brought all this to your attention?”Witness: “I heard the Lieutenant shout [raising her voice], ‘Whythe f—k are you here!?’”Military Judge (suddenly waking up): “What did you say!?”Witness: (Looking directly at the Military Judge, and repeatingslowly and deliberately) “Why . . . the f—k . . . are you here?”

In a trial of a Whiteman AFB, MO, airman accused of killinga local farmer’s prize hunting dog in the middle of the night

with an M-60 machine gun, one of only two eyewitnesses told mein pre-trial interviews he had been about 10 feet from the accusedwhen he pulled the trigger, and that he was looking straight at theaccused when he did so. I was Trial Counsel.

(This, in a rural county in which there is a statue of a huntingdog (“Old Drum”) on the courthouse lawn, where the entire clos-ing argument (only two paragraphs long) of a plaintiff’s attorneyis memorialized on a bronze plaque. It was given in a civil actionabout 100 years ago, and is considered to be a masterful use ofthe English language in describing the value of “man’s bestfriend”.) . . .

Trial Counsel: “Where were you in relation to the accusedwhen the shot was fired?”Witness: “I was about 100 yards away, on the other side of thePeacekeeper.”TC: (Thinking “Oh, Oh!”, but continuing with direct examina-tion): “In which direction were you looking?”Witness: “I was looking in the complete opposite direction of theaccused.”TC: (Now thinking, “You lying @@##**!”, but neverthelessrelentlessly, and idiotically, pressing on in violation of everythingI had ever been taught in law school and JASOC.) . . . “How, then,did you know it was the accused who pulled the trigger?”Witness: “I was meditating, and it came to me in a vision!”TC: “No further questions, your Honor.” (I swear I actually hearda trombone in the distance . . . “wah, wah, wah, wah.”)

In a special court-martial at Nellis AFB in the early ’70s—after pleading guilty to wrongful use of various contraband

substances—an airman made an unsworn statement in which heproudly claimed recognition of his Vietnam service by receipt ofan “Air Force Accommodation Medal.”

Once in a case before Judge Weir (Colonel Donald E.), mytongue got tied as I was trying to argue the lack of any

criminal intent in a larceny case. I was trying to use the term“surreptitious,” saying something to the effect that the airman“was not surresticious, I mean surreptious, I mean . . . . “ At thatpoint, Judge Weir graciously (as only Judge Weir could do) bailedme out and said, “Exxxcuuuse me counsel do you mean yourclient did not ‘hide’ the items?” I nodded, the members laughed,and . . . my client was subsequently acquitted.

Base X - In a bad check case accused had testified that hehad tried to borrow money from his mother to cover the

checks, but she would not loan it to him because the week beforehe had been trying to borrow money from her to buy a car, andshe thought he was really just claiming to be in trouble to get themoney for the car.

TC’s cross was, “You asked your mother for the money right?She wouldn’t give it to you, right? Because she didn’t believe

you when you told her why you needed the money right?”Needless to say this set up a cross where TC argued that on

one hand we have the government’s witnesses and evidence,and on the other hand we have the accused, whose own motherwouldn’t believe him!

When I was at Pope AFB, we (JAG office) had assisted insuspending an Airman’s on-base driving privileges. A

short while later, he showed up in the legal office trying to filea claim because a deer ran into his car on the perimeter road!

In April 1986, while at RAF Bentwaters, I was assistanttrial counsel at a GCM of a Security Policeman who had

broken into some AFFES concessionaire shops and stolenvarious items. His “beat” was to walk a foot patrol on thedomestic side of the base near the BX, base gas station, andcommissary. After breaking into the shops, he then secretedhis ill-gotten loot around the base until he got off duty, afterwhich he intended to retrieve the merchandise.

During the Care inquiry, the military judge, went throughthe specifications one-by-one with the accused, accountingfor every stolen item except for a missing sheepskin rug. Whenqueried, the young airman admitted having taking the missingrug in question, but denied still possessing it. He claimed thatafter removing it from the shop, he hid it in the tire rack at thebase gas station.

He then went on to explain what happened after he hadgotten off duty and returned to retrieve the rug: “Your Honor,I went to the tire rack to get that sheepskin rug. But do youknow what had happened, sir? Somebody had stolen it!”

The judge, the trial counsel, the ADC, the court reporter,and I could hardly keep from laughing out loud. The accusedwas the only one who didn’t get the joke. Judge L called animmediate recess so we could all vent our need to laugh.

A young JAG, prosecuting one of his very first caseswith the help of a more experienced prosecutor, was ex-

cited because he was going to do voir dire. Young Capt Xreceived some pointers from more experienced Capt Y, andCapt X asked lots of questions. As voir dire approached,young Capt X became more and more excited. After the mem-bers were seated and the judge explained the purpose of voirdire to the members, Capt X got up and said, “Good morningmembers of the court-martial, I am Capt Y, and sitting at thetable with me is Capt X....NO, WAIT - I’m Capt X, and he’sCapt Y!” The young prosecutor quickly recovered, and show-ing his true colors went on to do an outstanding job in court.

On November 25, 1994, appellant and another airman,while at a restaurant, noticed a woman’s bag which had

been left on the back of a chair. They took the bag and rum-maged through its contents. Appellant found and removed abook of blank starter checks for a new account.

The two airmen then proceeded to a local mall where appel-lant purchased items at two stores using two of the starterchecks. On those starter checks, appellant wrote his nameand address in the left-hand corner, signed his name, and pro-vided his driver’s license to store clerks for identification pur-poses. U.S. v. Guess, 48 M.J. 69, 70.

At Keesler AFB in 1979 I was Legal Advisor on an ad-ministrative discharge board for an E-5 or E-6 (call him

Sgt X) who couldn’t get to work on time in the PMEL shop.He was a great worker, his boss wanted to retain him, and he


often stayed late for “hot” projects, but after he divorced hejust couldn’t get up in the morning. The ADC was doing anexcellent job representing him on day one of the hearing and itlooked sure he would be retained. We adjourned at 1700 hourswith closing arguments scheduled for 0830. Sure enough, at0830 the Board Members and counsel were milling around inthe reception area, but no Sgt X. I pulled the ADC to the sideand asked if he was ready. Exasperated, the ADC said he’dcalled the First Sergeant to go get Sgt X. Forty-five minuteslater, Sgt X came hurrying in to the JAG office. He’d over-slept. Needless to say, he wasn’t retained.

How do I get these things off?!Major P. Michael Cunningham

While it is sometimes difficult to keep a sense of humorduring a trial, a Chief Circuit Trial Counsel (Maj P. MichaelCunningham, now Lieutenant Colonel Cunningham) uninten-tionally provided needed humor just prior to the start of anotherwise very serious trial in August of 1988 at SoesterbergAB in The Netherlands.

Trial was scheduled to begin at 0800 hours. About 30 min-utes before the scheduled start, Major Cunningham and theassistant trial counsel, then-Captain Andrea Andersen, wereexamining the Government’s evidence in the case which in-cluded a pair of handcuffs used by the accused in the commis-sion of his offenses. All of a sudden we heard a click* andlooked toward the sound to find that Major Cunningham hadlocked one side of the handcuffs around his right wrist. Noproblem, he thought, I’ll just have the Air Force Office ofSpecial Investigations (OSI) evidence custodian unlock thehandcuffs. Much to his chagrin however, the OSI specialagent did not have a key. Since OSI was not located near thelegal office, we called Security Police (SP). Unfortunately, theSP explained that these handcuffs were not standard and hiskey would not unlock them. It was clear we would have to callthe OSI to see if they had a key that fit.

It was 5 minutes prior to the start of trial and MajorCunningham and a piece of key government evidence hadbecome inseparable! In spite of our attempts to show MajorCunningham the humorous side to this situation, he was un-derstandably tense and not at all in a laughing mood. Thelaughter we could hear through the phone by the OSI when hecalled them also did not improve his disposition.

While we waited for the OSI to arrive, I felt obliged, as afairly new SJA, to help out and attempted to “pick” the hand-cuff lock. This effort only caused the cuff to become thatmuch more secure! Major Cunningham was now not only in atight spot, he was also in pain.

And as if matters could be worse, it was now 0800 hours.What was a trial counsel to do? Major Cunningham walkeddown to the Judge’s office and with his handcuffed hand heldbehind his back, requested a 30 minute delay. We couldn’thear the details of the request but it had something to do withproblems with the government’s evidence!!

In the end the OSI was able to get the handcuffs off andMajor Cunningham, as always, did an absolutely outstandingjob prosecuting the case and secured a conviction and sen-tence which the accused will continue to serve for many moreyears to come. (By Colonel David G. Ehrhart)

Editor’s note: On a serious note and as an excellent learningpoint, Lieutenant Colonel Cunningham (USAF, Retired) re-ports he tried the cuffs on because: “I had never been hand-cuffed. The very young boys in this molestation case werecuffed by the defendant. I wanted to feel what it was like to bepartially cuffed. Even this minor, insignificant event enlight-ened me to the stark terror they must have felt.” Undoubtedly,this seemingly humorous experience allowed then-MajorCunningham to more effectively explain to the members whythe accused should be locked up for a very long time.

The Case of the Shackled Trial Counsel

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Photo courtesy of C

olonel David E

hrhart

In front of my JASOC classmates, I must have had asubconscious override: I was prosecuting my moot

court, trying to define “beyond a reasonable doubt” in a sexualassault case. I began to explain that proof beyond a reason-able doubt was not to a mathematical certainty, but rather to amoral certainty. Instead however, I indicated that proof be-yond a reasonable doubt was to an “immoral” certainty. Need-less to say, the defense counsel, and the JASOC instructor,were a little concerned. Fortunately, the “members” did even-tually convict and my grade didn’t suffer.


I attended an interservice militaryjudges seminar where the keynotespeaker, a Federal District Judge, re-

ferred to appellate judges as “individu-als who come down from the hills afterthe battle and shoot the wounded.”This remark was met with immediate andenthusiastic applause by the attendingtrial judges.

In defending my brethren, past,present and future, it should be remem-bered that in any decision, 50 percentof the lawyers involved think the au-thor judge is a blathering idiot and theconcurring judges are approaching se-nility. Further, on a bad day both sideswill consider the decision wrong — butfor different reasons.

Having said that, the following is anabbreviated informal history of the AirForce’s Appellate Judiciary based onthe recollections of myself and others.It’s all true — give or take a lie or two. 1

EARLIER APPELLATE FORUMSThe present Air Force Court of Crimi-

nal Appeals had its beginnings withArticle 50 1/2 of the 1920 Articles of War.Article 50 1/2 was drafted after WorldWar I and required a mandatory reviewin cases involving death sentences anddismissals of officers. The 1920 Articlesof War and the 1928 Manual for Courts-Martial provided the basis for criminaltrials of America’s soldiers and airmenduring World War II. Boards of Reviewwere established in the various war

After the Conviction

COLONEL EARL E. HODGSON, JR., RETIRED

zones. There was one in the EuropeanTheater of Operations (BR/ETO), China-Burma-India Theater (BR/CBI) and theNorth Africa Theater (BR/NATO). Theywere kept busy as there were about80,000 general courts-martial duringWorld War II, an average of close to 60a day. Boards of Review decisions couldbe appealed to the Judicial Council un-der Article of War 50 (d)(2). Boards ofReview and Judicial Council memberswere senior military lawyers and wereidentified as “judge advocates” in thewritten opinions. The second JudgeAdvocate General of the Air Force,

Colonel Hodgson (B.A. and J.D.,Washburn University) is a member ofthe Bars of Kansas and Texas. He wasthe second winner of the Albert M.Kuhfeld award, 1965. He retired in1990, was called back to active dutyby SecAF and served as a Senior Judgeon the Air Force Court of Military Re-view from Jan 91 to Jun 92 when heretired for the last time.

Major General Albert M. Kuhfeld, wasa Judicial Council member.

After the Air Force became a sepa-rate service in 1947, the decisions of theJudicial Council from that date until 1950were compiled in a four volume set ofbooks entitled “Court-Martial Reportsof The Judge Advocate General of theAir Force.” Those of us who rememberthem called them the “Blue Books” —so named because of their dark blue al-most black bindings. Those JudicialCouncil decisions were also useful tonew judge advocates as each decisionbegan with a recitation of the charges


involved. They were great for writingArticle 134 specifications.

The decisions in these volumes givea fleeting and sometimes whimsical viewof military justice just after World WarII. For example, officers were tried forthe unauthorized wearing of Royal AirForce wings, obtaining flight pay hav-ing never been a rated officer, and myfavorite which involved a civilian pilotwho claimed that General DouglasMacArthur had commissioned him inthe Army Air Corps. He spent the warin the Pacific in uniform and was I be-lieve, a “major” when he was tried.

A NEW MILITARY CODE ARRIVESThe Military Justice Act of 1950 en-

acted the Uniform Code of Military Jus-tice which established the Court of Mili-tary Appeals, a three judge civilian tri-bunal, that replaced the Judicial Coun-cil that had previously been the finalreview body. The Military Justice Act

also established Boards of Review forthe separate services.

These Boards of Review sat as an in-termediary appellate body. Their deci-sions were heard by the Court of Mili-tary Appeals on grants of review. TheBoards of Review sat in panels of threewith the senior officer assigned to theBoard as its Chairman. Its memberswere senior judge advocates. The pub-lished decisions are found in wine-col-ored books called the “Courts-MartialReports.” For years the Air Force Boardof Review had its courtroom above thecommissary on Bolling Air Force Basein Washington D.C.

In 1969, the Air Force Board of Re-view became the Air Force Court ofMilitary Review by virtue of the Mili-tary Justice Act of 1968. Board of Re-view members became “appellate mili-tary judges” and wore robes. By stat-ute The Judge Advocate General ofeach service branch appointed the ChiefJudge. Also, by statute the Chief Judgewas prohibited from writing effective-ness reports on any judge. In the sum-mer of 1969, the Air Force Court of Mili-tary Review moved from “above thecommissary” at Bolling Air Force Baseto the seventh floor of the ForestallBuilding in downtown Washington D.C.There were eleven Chief Judges from1969 until 1992. Their terms of servicevaried from a short 21 days to almostnine years.

In the fall of 1973, I was appointed anappellate judge on the Air Force Courtof Military Review. I was fortunate tohave two outstanding lawyers, DonBrewer and Chet Halicki, who is nolonger alive, as mentors. The day I wassworn in, Chet took me into his officeand said, “Earl, there are going to bedays when you just can’t write. Noth-ing flows. When that happens, sitdown, put your feet on the desk andlook out the window. If anyone asksyou what you are doing, tell them youare thinking.” I sometimes think thatwas the best advice anyone could givea new judge.

A short time later while I was robingfor my first oral argument, Don took measide and said, “If we ask counsel ques-tions they can’t answer, you are not toanswer for them.” Don was the SeniorJudge on my panel, and to this day hehas not told me why he thought thatadvice was necessary.

THE BOMB SHELLPrior to 2 June 1969, the questions of

court-martial jurisdiction depended al-most totally upon the status of the ac-cused. The rule was clear: If the ac-cused was in the military, and the of-fense was one set out in the Code, thecourt-martial had jurisdiction. The Su-preme Court changed all that with it rul-ing in O’Callahan v. Parker. Over ahundred years of military precedentswere set aside, and now jurisdiction ofUS Court of Military Appeals, 1954. Maj Gen

Harmon sponsoring a group of AF JAGs for ad-mission to the Bar in front of judges Lattimerand Brosman (left to right)


Chief JudgesAir Force Court of Military Review Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals

Colonel Chester W. Wilson, 1 Aug 69 - 31 Dec 69 Colonel Richard D. S. Dixon, II, 1 Mar 92 - 30 Mar 97Colonel Carl Goldschalager, 1 Jan 70 - 17 Jun 70 Colonel Richard F. Rothenburg, 1 Apr 97 - 1 April 99Colonel Donald A. Williams, 18 Jun 70 - 2 Aug 70 Colonel William T. Snyder, 2 April 99 - PresentColonel Quincey W. Tucker, 3 Aug 70 - 22 Jun 71Colonel Robert S. Amery, 23 Jun 71 - 8 Sep 74Colonel Grosvenor H. LeTarte, 9 Sep 74 - 31 Dec 76Colonel Paul W. Buehler, 1 Jan 77 - 8 Sep 77Colonel Carl R. Abrams, 9 Sep 77 - 30 Sep 77Colonel William N. Early, 1 Oct 77 - 14 Sep 81Colonel Earl E. Hodgson, Jr., 15 Sep 81 - 31 May 90Colonel Patrick B. O’Brien 1 Jun 90 - 28 Feb 92

a court-martial would be limited to thoseoffenses that were “service-con-nected.” It would seem that all the ser-vice courts had fallen victim to the curseof “May you live in interesting times.”And interesting they were. Less than amonth after the O’Callahan decision,the Air Force Court held in Burkhartthat bigamy was service-connected.This decision was the first of many bythe Air Force Court that espoused theview that the military should, wheneverpossible, retain jurisdiction. This con-servative view caused one writer toquestion whether the Air Force Courtof Military Review recognized the Courtof Military Appeals as “the SupremeCourt of the military judicial system.”Adhering to the maxim that there areonly two kinds of appellate judges;those who have been reversed and

those who are going to be reversed, theAir Force Court continued to find a “ser-vice-connection” where the facts war-ranted it. History has shown those AirForce appellate judges writing in theearly days of O’Callahan to be right.In 1987, the Supreme Court in Solorioallowed military courts to exercise juris-diction as they did prior to O’Callahan.

ON THE ROAD AGAINIn the late 1970s the Air Force Court

of Military Review moved from theForrestal Building to the fourth floor ofa non-descript building in a seedy sec-tion of Washington D.C. called “Buz-zard Point,” so named because duringthe Civil War carcasses of horses andmules were left there to be disposed ofby buzzards.

2 However, within a few

years the Air Force Court of Military

Review again relocated, this time to anew modern building on Bolling AirForce Base that was shared with the AirForce Chief of Chaplains. There is astory that goes with this also: John Howell, who was the Chief TrialJudge, and I would meet before the dutyday started, to discuss events of vitalnational importance, i.e., the ball scores,the latest British imports on PBS, andon occasion, the latest decision fromthe Court of Military Appeals. In con-versation with others we would refer toour building, which had no officialname, as “Thoad Hall.” The referencebeing to the residence of “Mr. Toad” inthe “Wind in the Willows.” Someoneasked, I don’t recall who, for whom thebuilding was named. Tongue in cheekwe suggested that it was named after“Theophilus Thoad” an early 19th cen-tury military chaplain. Neither one ofus thought anything about it until westarted getting correspondence with thecorrect street address but directed to“Thoad Hall, Bolling Air Force Base,D.C.” Thereafter, it was suggested thatthe correct address without the ficti-tious history would allow the mail to bepromptly delivered.

ON MY WATCH I suppose that every Chief Judge hasa decision that lends itself as a land-mark of his time on the court. Duringmy tenure there were many, but UnitedStates v. Gay, 16 M.J. 586 (AFCMR 1983)has to be at the top of the list or close to

Offutt AFB courtroom.


it. The decision, written by WayneKastel, found the current Manual forCourt-Martial provision permitting theimposition of the death penalty to beunconstitutional. For any young law-yer who hopes to be a judge the read-ing of this decision is a must. It is schol-arly, thoughtful and the way an appel-late decision should be written. BingMiller’s dissent is also worthy of closereading. The decision was appealed tothe Court of Military Appeals and af-firmed. It was reported in the New YorkTimes and the Washington Post. Thestruck-down Manual provisions werelater re-written to meet the required con-stitutional standards. Finally, I had the

honor in the fall of 1981 to swear in MillieRaichle as the first woman appellatejudge on the Air Force Court of Mili-tary Review.

THE AIR FORCE COURT TODAY On 5 October 1994, the Air ForceCourt of Military Review was renamedthe “Air Force Court of Criminal Ap-peals.” That same date the Court ofMilitary Appeals became the “UnitedStates Court of Appeals for the ArmedForces.” As I said earlier, this was to be aninformal history based on my memoriesand those of others. I read somewherethat many good stories are ruined by

attempts at verification, so bear with meif the reader’s memory of some events Ihave related differ from mine. I can onlyrepeat that it is all true — give or take alie or two.

1 Editor’s Note: However, the editorshave found most of Colonel Hodgson’sasserted facts verifiable. See also, WillH. Carrol, A Short Account Of The EarlyYears of The Office Of The JudgeAdvocate General, THE REPORTER, Vol.8, No 1, Feb 97.2 See Mahoney, Me and Mr B, this

edition of THE REPORTER.

US Court of Military Appeals.


Air Force Leads Way:

Pioneering the Defense Program

In April 1972, Mr. Melvin R. Laird1 , aSecretary of Defense for the NixonAdministration, commissioned the

Task Force on the Administration ofMilitary Justice in the Armed Forces toexamine the military justice process and,among other things, “to recommendways to strengthen the military justicesystem and to enhance the opportunityfor equal justice for every servicemanand woman.”2 This committee was co-chaired by Mr. Nathaniel Jones, Gen-eral Counsel for the National Associa-tion for the Advancement of ColoredPeople (NAACP) and Lieutenant Gen-eral C.E. Hutchin, Jr., Commander, FirstArmy.3 The Task Force made recom-mendations to Mr. Laird who chose, asone of his last acts while in office, toimmediately implement one suggestion:require each service to prepare a planto provide that all defense counsel forcourts-martial, Article 15s, and admin-istrative boards be under the directionof TJAG.4 By memorandum dated 11January 1973, Mr. Laird directed eachmilitary department to submit plans forthe restructure.5 Within seven months,the Air Force prepared and began imple-menting the plan.

The Air Force, under the direction ofthen-TJAG Major General James S.

Major Norton (B.A. and J.D., Univer-sity of Alabama) is an Instructor, Mili-tary Justice Division, Air Force JudgeAdvocate General School. She is amember of the Georgia and AlabamaState Bars.

W e have seen the armed forces, with the Air Force usually in the fore, notonly adjust to but, in most instances, take the lead in protecting the rights of

an accused in criminal proceedings.~ Major General Robert W. Manss

cuit, Northeastern United States Judi-ciary Region,16 on 1 January 1974.17

Defense counsel were reassigned to theAppellate Defense Division although,in most cases, they continued to be sta-tioned at the same base of assign-ment.18 Colonel Burch recalls the pro-gram being established to address per-ceptions, and not actual reports of un-lawful command influence.19 For thatreason, he was initially cautious believ-ing commanders might resist the pro-gram and not want to work with theADCs. However, he recalls that oncethe ADCs were in place, the command-ers were very enthusiastic about theprogram and would never have permit-ted it to be dismantled.20 Colonel Burchalso recalls insisting the ADC be locatedoutside the Staff Judge Advocate’s Of-fice. “If we left the ADC in that office, itwouldn’t have helped the perceptionproblem that we were trying to ad-dress.”21 General Russell Dougherty,the Commander in Chief of Strategic AirCommand from 1974 to 1977 recalled thatwhen the system was being created,there was some apprehension fromcommanders that those detailed asADCs would lose identity with the AirForce, feel separated, and get out of theservice as a result.22 However, on thetwentieth anniversary of the program,General Dougherty was very impressedwith the program and the quality of thecounsel, and did not feel those fearshad come to fruition.23

MAJOR LYNN G. NORTON

Cheney, established a committee to pre-pare the plan.6 The committee acted inresponse to servicemembers’ percep-tions that a system in which both pros-ecution and defense worked from thesame office created conflicts of interestimpeding equal and zealous access tothe military justice system.7 The origi-nal Air Force plan assigned defensecounsel to the Trial Judiciary Divisionand envisioned one or more defensecounsel assigned at approximately 72percent of Air Force bases.8 It calledfor an increase in the Trial Judiciary Di-vision of approximately 135 judge ad-vocates and 120 administrative person-nel to support the new positions, withthe majority of the authorizations beingdrawn from the existing base legal of-fices.9 The Task Force recommendedthat the establishment of an “indepen-dent” defense counsel “required as anabsolute minimum that they be physi-cally separated from both the Office ofthe Staff Judge Advocate and the trialcounsel.”10 Therefore, General Cheneydecided to press ahead with the imple-mentation of the program during fiscalyear 1974.11 General Cheney retired inSeptember 197312 so Major GeneralHarold R. Vague was TJAG when theprogram was formally implemented.13

Colonel William M. Burch, II, was theDirector, USAF Judiciary, at the time theprogram was implemented.14 The testprogram, called the Area Defense Coun-sel (ADC) Program, was officially15

implemented throughout the First Cir-


From the frontier. Then-Captain Joseph A. Wilhelm, III, one

of the very first ADCs in the initial phaseof the program, recalls setting up thenew office. “The SJA called all of us [inthe base legal office] together and askedif anyone would like to go over to thisnew office they were creating…and Ivolunteered,” he relates. “I went overand then said, ‘What do we do?’ [TheSJA] found us an office in the old hos-pital and moved us over there…andthen asked what we wanted for a sup-ply budget. I didn’t know so they toldus to buy what we needed and that theywould use that as a baseline for futurebudgets. They even created a secre-tary slot and we interviewed and hiredone…. The SJA agreed wholeheartedlywith the program so there was neverany backlash…. It was a great job. Ididn’t have a boss for a while becauseit was going to be someone in Wash-ington but there wasn’t anyone inWashington in the beginning, whichwas great with me because I wasn’t toointerested in talking to my boss any-way,” Wilhelm recalls.24 There wasn’tany training provided initially becausethe new area defense counsel hadserved as defense counsel while as-signed to the Office of the Staff JudgeAdvocate.25

Since the placement of ADCs wasbased upon courts-martial conductedat each base during 1972 before the endof the American involvement in the Viet-nam War, 26 “We’d done about 15 courtsat Wright-Patterson the year before Imoved over to defense counsel. How-ever, as I recall about 80 percent of thosecases had been for AWOL. When thewar ended, no one went AWOL any-more and we only had about five casesthe first year I was ADC and there weretwo ADCs assigned to our office. So Igot to travel to a few other bases to docases and I had a lot of fun,” Wilhelm

remembered.27 He recalls the move as“very liberating,” because it was justlike being a SJA, in a more narrow sense.He said he enjoyed the job speculatingthen that he couldn’t get a better job—

his career could only get worse becauseit was the best job in the Air Force.28

The program was implemented world-wide on 1 July 1974.29

Then-Captain Thomas S. Markiewiczwas the first Area Defense Counsel as-signed to Edwards Air Force Base, Cali-fornia.30 “Being an ADC then wasn’tlike it is now with Circuit conferencesand everything,” he describes. “Every-thing we did was very individual to thebase, and I don’t even recall any docu-ment that had [all of the ADCs’] nameson it.”31 He describes setting up hisfirst office as “not plush, but certainlyvery adequate,”32 consisting of an of-fice on the second floor of a condemnedcommissary building with a World War

7th Judiciary Circuit, ClarkAB, Philippines, 1981. (leftto right) CMSgt H. Steward,SSgt R. Booth, Capt C. Mor-gan, Maj P. Kendall, Capt R.Schmidt, Capt H. J. Shearer,Maj D. Hawkley, MSgt D.North, Col H. K. Smith

A friend a few years back...a federal district court judge...saidthat he could always tell in his court anyone who had been a judgeadvocate. He said it was not just because of trial experience, butbecause he or she was more disciplined, more courteous, morerespectful, more understanding of the role of the court.

~ Major General James Taylor, Jr.

II vintage typewriter, a library includingan incomplete Manual for Courts-Mar-tial and red books faded to orange, anda desk that was surplus from the con-finement facility.33 He recalls that therewas a tremendous amount of excitementabout the program among those se-lected to be ADCs, and that he wastreated extremely well by the commandthat recognized the value of an inde-pendent defense counsel.34 Mr.Markiewicz cites the ADC Program as“the greatest success story in theDepartment’s history. It gives militaryjustice the respect it deserves, clientsthe confidence they need, judge advo-cates the independence and support tobecome the best corps of trial lawyersin the nation.”35

Resounding success. The AreaDefense Counsel Program was

made a permanent program on 22 July1975 by General David C. Jones, AirForce Chief of Staff.36 The recommen-dation that the program be made per-manent came after an Evaluation Boardcomposed of line and JAG officers con-sidered “individual evaluations from593 commanders, staff judge advocates,military judges and defensecounsel…[and a] survey from Lowry AirForce Base…and testimony from wit-nesses….”37 The board unanimouslyfound that the Area Defense CounselProgram “met its goal of increasing theoverall actual and apparent stature ofdefense counsel and judicial functionsthroughout the Air Force…. The Pro-gram has gained the almost universalrespect and acceptance of command-ers at all levels, and has become a valu-able tool in front-end rehabilitationwhich can be accomplished only by ajudge advocate who has gained theconfidence of an airman by virtue of hisposition as independent defense coun-sel.”38

Photo courtesy of C

olonel Kirby S

mith


Other services follow suit.The present-day Area Defense

Counsel program is a slight modifica-tion of the original program set up byGenerals Cheney and Vague.39 The U.S.Army implemented an independent de-fense counsel program, Trial DefenseServices, on a test basis in 1978 and apermanent basis in 1980.40 The Navytook a different approach, implement-ing an independent prosecution andcommand service representative pro-gram between 1983 and 1985 which wasterminated for insufficient personnel andfunding resources. The Navy currentlyhas an independent trial program calledthe Trial Services Office that began as apilot program in 1994.41

Upon the Area Defense CounselProgram’s tenth anniversary, MajorGeneral James Taylor, Jr. (Retired DJAG),recounts the creation of an independentdefense counsel system as theDepartment’s hallmark. In 1984 henoted, “There are about 24 items as Irecall that are listed by the Air Force assignificant Air Force developments inits history, and only one of those be-long to JAG, and I think it is the rightone. If we’re entitled to only one…thenI think the right one was chosen, one inwhich I played no part but take muchpride in: It was the establishment of anindependent defense counsel system,in 1974, the Area Defense Counsel Sys-tem.”42 He states, “One of the thingsthat I say to the commanders aroundthe country and to the public at largeabout that system, whatever its benefitsand flaws, is that we were not requiredto do it; not by statute. Neither did [theOffice of the Secretary of Defense] re-quire us to do it. The Air Force did thatbecause we believed it was right, and Ihave no hesitancy in saying that thatwas one of our best decisions in the AirForce.”43

1 Melvin R. Laird, 10th Secretary of Defense,Nixon Administration, 22 January 1969-29January 1973; http:// www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/laird.htm. 2 Colonel W. M. Burch, II, From MilitaryJustice Branch to Directorate, USAFJudiciary, XV, No. 1 JAG L. REV. 45, 48(1973). 3 History Office of The Air Force JudgeAdvocate General, Oral History of Colonel

William M. Burch, II, USAF Retired: ANew Era in Military Justice; TheIndependent Defense Counsel (June 1996)(unpublished oral history) (on file with Mr.Eugene O. Solimine at AFMC LO/JA,Wright-Patterson AFB, OH), at 95(hereinafter Burch Oral History).4 Burch, supra note 2, at 48 (citing Lettersubmitting the Report of the Task Force tothe Secretary of Defense (Nov. 30, 1972). 5 The Area Defense Counsel Program,AFJAG REPORTER 1973/12, at 2. 6 Burch, supra note 2, at 49. Afterindependent consideration, each of theservices responded to the Secretary ofDefense with their plans. “It is interestingto note that one of the services forwardedits plan with a recommendation by itsSecretary that it not be adopted because ofthe impact on its already short supply oflegally trained personnel.” Id., n. 14. 7 Id. at 49. 8 Id. Interestingly the originalannouncement of the plan was to begin infiscal year 1974 which seemingly did occur.See infra note 15. However, the officialannouncement of the program to the fieldcited an implementation date of 1 January1974. See Burch, supra note 2, at 49. Theoriginal plan based the number of ADCs ona survey of the number of courts conductedat each base the year prior to implementationof the program. Telephone interview withCol (Ret.) William M. Burch, II (Jan. 29,1999) (hereinafter Burch TelephoneInterview). After the survey, “we came upwith a map and here, here and here…. Wesat down and decided, ‘Okay, where can wecluster?’ By that I mean, if you had…twoor three bases not too far apart and thereweren’t many courts-martial, okay we’dpick one and put in an Area DefenseCounsel. Let’s face it, if you had a base thathad two special courts a year, you’re notgoing to give them an Area Defense Counsel.You had to do that type of clustering….We’d call them an Area Defense Counseland he or she would have a certain area.”This was the origin of the name of theprogram. Burch Oral History, supra note3, at 97-98 (emphasis added). 9 Burch, supra note 2, at 49. To getvolunteers for the new positions, thecommittee “went to the bases and said,‘Who do you recommend for these slots?Who has been doing the most defense workor trial work?’ That’s the way we did itinitially.” Burch Oral History, supra note3, at 99. 10 Burch, supra note 2, at 49. 11 Id. 12 Biography of Major General James S.Cheney, http://www.ja.hq.af.mil/Cheney.htm. 13 Major General Harold R. Vague, InClosing, AFJAG REPORTER 1977/3, at 1. 14 Burch, supra note 2, at 45. 15 Unofficially, the Area Defense Counsel

officers were being set up as early as thebeginning of fiscal year 1974, which beganon 1 July 1973. Telephone interview withColonel Joseph A. Wilhelm, III, SeniorIndividual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA)to Electronic System Center Staff JudgeAdvocate at Hanscom Air Force Base,Massachusetts (Jan. 27, 1999) (hereinafterWilhelm Telephone Interview). 16 Presently the Eastern Circuit. Counselassigned to the First Circuit included MajorSteven R. Bloss as Chief, Circuit DefenseCounsel; Captains William Cook andMichael D. Wims as Circuit DefenseCounsel; and as Area Defense Counsel,Captain John D. Alton at Lockbourne AFB,OH; Captains Thomas J. Baynham andHernan Rios, Jr., at McGuire AFB, NJ;Captains Allen S. Brown and Joseph A.Wilhelm III at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH;Captain Nordahl L. Brue at PlattsburghAFB, NY; Captains Malcolm L. Burdineand Peter J. O’Loughlin at L.G. HanscomField, MA; Captain James P. Czajkowskiat Wurtsmith AFB, MI; Captain Joseph H.Duff at Griffis AFB, NY; Captain James R.Harris at Kincheloe AFB, MI; CaptainsMichael P. King and Wendell K. Smith atLangley AFB, VA; Captain George R.Krouse, Jr., at Loring AFB, ME; CaptainRobert L. Leonard at Hancock Field, NY;Captain John E. Maziarz at Dover AFB,DE; Captains Thomas Pillari and Doyle D.Sanders at Chanute AFB, IL; Captain JamesM. Ronk at Scott AFB, IL; Captain John L.Tison at Grissom AFB, IN; and CaptainBryant L. Van Brakle at Andrews AFB,MD. Memorandum from Robert W. Norris,Lt Colonel, USAF, Chief, CareerManagement Division, Office of The JudgeAdvocate General, for All Judge Advocates,Area Defense Counsel Program, (Apr. 26,1974) (on file with the author). 17 The Area Defense Counsel Program,supra note 5. 18 Id. 19 “[I]n my thirty-some odd years [evenbefore the independent defense counsel], Inever knew of a case where a Commanderor anybody else tried to influence a defensecounsel. As you well know, most of ourdefense counsels were youngsters. A lot ofthem were in for four years and they wereas independent as a hog on ice. There wasn’tany SJA or any Commander that was goingto tell that Defense Counsel, ‘You lay off.’”Burch Oral History, supra note 3, at 99. 20 Burch Telephone Interview, supra note 8. 21 Id. 22 Videotape: Area Defense Counsel 20th

Anniversary (HQ USAF TV Center, 11th

Communications Squadron, Rm. 5c-1045,Pentagon, (703)695-7317, Aug. 22, 1994)(on file with Trial Defense Division, AirForce Legal Services Agency) (hereinafterVideotape). 23 Id. 24 Wilhelm Telephone Interview, supra note


15. 25 Id. However, the initial Circuit DefenseCounsel were sent to the “Short Course forDefense Lawyers in Criminal Cases” atNorthwestern University School of Law inChicago in July 1973, the only courseavailable at that time for defense counsel.Memorandum from Michael B. McShane,Colonel, USAF, Chief Trial Judge, for MajorLynn G. Norton, A Bit of History (Jan. 29,1999) (on file with author). 26 Burch Telephone Interview, supra note 8. 27 Wilhelm Telephone Interview, supra note15. 28 Id. 29 The Area Defense Counsel Program,supra note 5. Other than the First Circuitcounsel listed in footnote 16, the first Chief,Circuit Defense Counsel, were Maj MajorC. Roberts, Jr., Lt Col Edward L. True, MajJames A. Mitchell, Maj Guido J. Casari, Jr.,Maj William M. McKenna, III, and Lt ColRobert E. Moore. The first Circuit DefenseCounsel were Captains Richard R. James,Elisha B. Hurd, Jr., Michael B. McShane,Byron D. Baur, James R. Crassweller, EdgarW. Ennis, Jr., Dennis R. Triggs, and JosephP. Conran. The Area Defense Counsel wereSecond Circuit: Captains Raymond G.Chadwick, Mikel L. Purcell, William A.Brannon, James P. Bodenheimer, Luke J.Coussan, Mark G. Farrell, Barry A. Cook,Robert S. Stallings, Daniel J. Walker, JohnA. DeFrancisco, Lee C. Schmachtenberg, LeeB. Sayler, Francis Garger, Donald T.Robinson, James J. Gonzales, Joseph V.Manders, Jr., Roger W. Giles, Roland F.Berlingo, David A. Bloomer, Robert C.Irwin, Jr., and James G. Armstrong; ThirdCircuit: Captains Joseph D. Matlock,Joseph L. Brownlee, William O. Traynor,Derrick R. Franck, William S. Herbert, Jr.,G. Kethro, Robert A. Johnson, Rush M.Hoag, III, Larry G. Shockley, Freeman G.Duncan, Larry T. Thraikill, Larry J.Molinari, John M. Abbott, Donald L.Schwendiman, James L. Swift, Roland G.Couch, Joseph S. Spitzer, Douglas W.Lyons, Jr., Harvey L. Court, Frank E. Marek,and William J. Denton; Fourth Circuit:Captains William P. Moore, Robert G.Gibson, Jr., Herbert A. Farbes, Jr., DamonL. Gannett, Philip W. Eglsaer, Jerry J. Miller,Carlos E. Torres, Todd E. Norton, DouglasM. Deibert, Robert P. Hailey, Robert C.Lahmann, Gerald A. Stimmel, Glenn J.Gamboa, Howard L. Rubenfield, and GlennE. Bradford; Fifth Circuit:Captains JohnsR. Marks, III, Herbert R. Schulze, David A.Bateman, Daniel E. McKelvey, John C.Stewart, Jr., Joe E. Alford, Homer S. Mullins,Andrew F. Reish, Warrant T. Conrad,Richard K. Frampton, Thomas S.Markiewicz, James H. Vestal, Carl J.Debevec, Robert D. Reinhard, Patrick J.Kearney, Richard D. Beeson, James S.Magoffin, Jr., Robert C. Nowak, Richard E.Dick, and Patrick W. Border; Sixth Circuit:

Captains Bruce S. Bailey, Thomas J. Brown,Peter P. Dawson, III, Gerald C. Shea, GaryC. Smallridge, Harry B. Flanagan, JeffreyM. Denson, Robert C. Kidd, Lewis G.Brewer, Gerald F. Bennett, James R. Cook,William T. Snyder, Allen W. Rigsby, Jr.,Michael S. Lawyer, Alex P. Poulicos,Thomas J. Thompson, Larry E. Oakes,Ernest J. Romero, and James C. Fetterman;Seventh Circuit: Captains Thomas P.McMahon, Anthony W. Walluk, Jr., JulianV. Buenger, Patrick A. Tucker, Richard L.Farr, and Len B. Cason; Eighth Circuit:Captains Don E. Cavett, Dan M.Scheuermann, John M. Coyle, James N.Potuk, Charles M. Teague, and Dwight H.Ellis, III. Memorandum from Robert W.Norris, Lt Colonel, USAF, Chief, CareerManagement Division, Office of The JudgeAdvocate General, for All Judge Advocates,Area Defense Counsel Program, (Apr. 26,1974) (on file with the author). 30 Videotape, supra note 22. 31 Telephone interview with Mr. ThomasS. Markiewicz, Chief, Clemency,Corrections and Officer Review Division,Air Force Legal Services Agency,Washington D.C., (Jan. 26, 1999)(hereinafter Markiewicz TelephoneInterview). 32 Id. The ADC offices were frequentlyreferred to in similar terms. Then CaptainMichael B. McShane, one of the first CircuitDefense Counsel, wrote in his 1975evaluation of the program, “Commandsupport for the program has been good. Ihave found the facilities provided for theArea Defense Counsel to be generallyadequate. The best looking offices are theresult of a great deal of self-help.”Memorandum from Michael B. McShane,Captain, USAF, Circuit Defense Counsel,for USAF Trial Judiciary, Evaluation ofPilot ADC Program (May 12, 1975). 33 Videotape, supra note 22. 34 Markiewicz Telephone Interview, supranote 31. 35 Videotape, supra note 22. 36 Area Defense Counsel Program MadePermanent, AFJAG REPORTER 1975/6&7, at11. 37 Id. 38 Id. 39 Videotape supra note 22. 40 John R. Howell, TDS: The Establishmentof the U.S. Army Trial Defense Service, 100MIL. L. REV. 4 (1983). 41 Memorandum from U.S. Navy Office ofthe Judge Advocate General andHeadquarters, Naval Legal ServiceCommand, for All Judge Advocates,Establishment of Prototype Trial ServicesCommand (May 3, 1994). 42 Major General James Taylor, Jr. (Ret.),Taking Stock: Thoughts on 35 Years, 3 THE

REPORTER 1, 4 (Spring 1984). 43 Id. at 5.

THE ADC�S BACK

Words by Lt Col MarkMagness

Sung to the tune of “MyBoyfriend’s Back”

He went away, and yousearched my carAnd busted me for pot.I told you I didn’t do it,But you said things on thatcharge sheetThat weren’t very nice....

Oh, the ADC’s back, andWe’re gonna go to trial.

Hey-la, hey-la, the ADC.He’s promised meWe’re gonna wipe off yoursmile.

Hey-la, hey-la, the ADC.The ADC tells meYour search was a mess.

Hey-la, hey-la, the ADC.I never consented.I only acquiesced.

Hey-la, hey-la, the ADC.

Yeah, he’s the very bestAt the motion to suppress.

The ADC’s our friend,We trust him more than just

a little.Wah-oo, Wah-oo.

He comes from California,Parts his hair in the middle.Wah-oo...just like me!

The ADC tells meThings will be fine.

Hey-la, hey-la, the ADC.We’re gonna prove thatThe pot wasn’t mine.

Hey-la, hey-la, the ADC.You know I loan my carTo friends who get in a lurch.

Hey-la, hey-la, the ADCIn fact, the ADC borrowed itThe night before the search.


These days, everyone wants to do operations law, but how clear are we on just what exactly operations law

is? With the post-Cold War form and substance of the AirForce finally emerging in the guise of the Expeditionary AirForce (EAF), JAGs may be called upon to perform legal workjust about anywhere in the world, possibly on very short no-tice. Operations lawyering is fast becoming business as usualthroughout the JAG although it wasn’t always that way in theDepartment.

How did we get involved with this thing called operationslaw? Officially, on 14 June 1991 — just months after the end ofthe Gulf War — the International Law Division of the Air Staffbecame the International and Operations Law Division. Ini-tially, the new division was divided into three branches: inter-national law, air and space law, and operations law. But whywas there a perceived need to officially recognize a new legalsubspecialty within the Department? The answer lies in achain of events running from Vietnam to Operation DESERTSTORM.

Vietnam was the first highly politicized modern conflict withwhich the US was involved. Although any war is — at leastaccording to Clausewitz — a political statement, Vietnam wasthe first conflict literally brought nightly into our living rooms.This revolution in combat reporting, coupled with the directcontrol over combat operations exercised by civilian leadersand the simmering U.S. public opposition to the conflict re-sulted in a sharply heightened sense among military command-ers at all levels that they were under the microscope. Thetrials resulting from the My Lai massacre underscored thesense that U.S. troops in Vietnam were constantly in peril ofslipping into lawlessness. ( The article that follows by CaptainBurke demonstrates the peculiar environment of the Vietnamconflict. ) Air Forcejudge advocates gavelegal assistance, paid

claims and did courts-martial,but for the most part did notplay an operational advisory role.1 Meanwhile, there wasanother more expensive war being fought simultaneously: theCold War.

Although Vietnam had a lasting impact on the American

A Vital Piece of the Air Force Package

Major Walker (B.A., Tulane; M.S.Sc. Syracuse; J.D.,Georgetown, LL.M., Harvard) is in the International andOperations Law Division, HQ USAF. He is a member of theIllinois State Bar.

military and society in general, the Cold War was the definingconflict in the 45 years between World War II and the fall ofthe Berlin Wall. The very nature of the US military — andhence the work of military lawyers — was defined by the vi-sion of an enormously large and destructive set-piece battlewith the Soviet Union across the plains of central Europe.This vision drove in turn a huge forward-based force, intendedto deter the Soviets and, failing that, fight the great strugglefrom these permanently manned forward locations. The ColdWar Air Force was a garrisoned force — something near theantithesis of a lean and agile expeditionary force. To conceiveof “operations law” in this context was a little ludicrous; theoperation — should it come — would be all-out, and quicklyescalate to chemical and tactical nuclear war. It would notrequire much legal thought or justification.

This is not to say that there were not operations around theedges of the Cold War that required some kind of expedition-ary force — peacekeeping missions in Lebanon and the Sinaior humanitarian relief operations around the world are goodexamples — but these were miniscule concerns in comparisonto the mission of deterring and beating the Soviets. However,the events of the late 1980s, culminating in the reunification ofGermany, the end of the Warsaw Pact, and the waning ofRussia’s superpower status radically changed the way the USmilitary did business.

There were three major lasting effects on US military struc-ture and strategy that resulted from the end of the Cold War,all of interest to the development of operations law as a mili-tary legal discipline. First and most obvious, the end of theCold War resulted in the rapid shrinkage of US military forcesin general and the US overseas military presence in particular.Second, the fading of the superpower standoff lifted the lid ondozens of transnational, international, internal, or interethnic

conflicts that had been simmering on the geopolitical backburner for decades. These conflicts tend to be highly

legalistic — based on UN resolutions or en-forcement of international human rights trea-ties for example — and particularly difficultto manage, hence putting a premium on strict

legal compliance. Finally, the end of the near-certain US andUSSR offsetting vetoes led to a stunning reinvigoration of theUnited Nations Security Council as an important internationalentity, which in turn opened new avenues of influence forother intergovernmental and non-governmental organizationsspanning the spectrum from NATO to Save the Children, fromthe OSCE to Doctors Without Borders. This too increased thedemand for near-constant lawyering in most operations.

But what does all this mean for military lawyers? Therealpolitik (a fancy term for ‘might makes right’) of the Cold

MAJOR JEFFERY K. WALKER


War era has yielded to a more principled international systembased on the rule of law. The US and other nations, proddedby a sense of obligation or conscience to end the more egre-gious violations of fundamental human rights around the world,have shown themselves more willing to take on new and di-verse roles in peacekeeping, peacemaking, nation building,humanitarian relief — in short, nontraditional missions thatmilitary establishments have generally shunned in the past.These military missions are extremely complex both legallyand politically: Colonel Dunlap’s discussion of operations inSomalia in the following pages is an instructive example. Rulesof engagement (ROE) for example — hitherto a concern onlyto naval vessels operating in international waters and hardlyof much interest to troops training for the grand conflict withthe Soviets — emerged as a complex and important compo-nent of planning for these new types of missions.2 The inter-national mandates — generally Security Council resolutions— authorizing operations normally require measured and lim-ited force for self-protection only. Even in instances wherethe UN has authorized “all necessary means,” the often tenta-tive political support for many operations requires restrictiveROE to minimize both friendly force and civilian casualties.The laws of armed conflict, originally designed for generalwar between regular military forces, do not easily fitthese new operations. Again, the demand for opera-tions lawyers is high in these situations.

Just as importantly as the nature ofthe new operations undertaken by USforces is their location. In just a few shortyears, the US military has moved from a fight-from-garrison force to a fight-anywhere force.Major Broseker’s article on the Gulf War demon-strates how a military lawyer’s job has been ex-ponentially complicated by the new expeditionary na-ture of military operations. In DESERT SHIELD/DESERTSTORM, a huge portion of the Air Force was transplanted ina fairly short time into a forward area of operations where wehad had no permanent and little temporary presence. In thesame vein, the US traditionally has maintained status of forcesagreements (SOFAs) with only a handful of countries wherewe had permanently assigned forces — Japan, Korea, theNATO nations, Panama, the Philippines. With the very realpossibility of operations or exercises virtually anywhere inthe world, the US now maintains SOFAs with over 100 nations— including every former Warsaw Pact member nation. As aresult of this rapidly increasing body of international law, theneed for operational lawyering has grown apace.

So what then does operations law really mean? It’s a bit likea medical doctor saying he’s a general practitioner — youhave to be able to do a respectable job in just about anyspecialty with very little notice as to who and what will comethrough the door next. Operations law entails internationallaw, procurement law, fiscal law, military justice, labor law, en-vironmental law, US civil law — all done in fast-forward. To bea great operations lawyer is to be a competent journeymanJAG who can think independently and quickly.

But there is a bit more to it thanthat. In our normal day- to-day workin CONUS, we support the Departmentof the Air Force’s mission to organize, train,and equip air forces. However, when Air Force units — withtheir JAGs in tow — are chopped to a theater commander-in-chief or one of his task forces, we move into the executionbusiness. As Colonel Steve Lepper has pointed out, the “para-digm operations lawyer” is the staff judge advocate of eachunified and specified command — the legal advisors atEUCOM, PACOM, and SOUTHCOM for example — who fo-cus daily on execution of US military policy within their geo-graphic theater. The military departments’ primary responsi-bilities are to provide trained and equipped forces — includ-ing JAGs — to these CINCs. Some JAGs are permanentlyassigned to these CINCs and are in the operations law busi-ness every day. For those of us in CONUS, readiness means

how quickly we can assume duties as operational lawyerswhen chopped to a CINC or one of his task forces. It is

this vision of presenting forces in a state of continuousreadiness to the theater CINCs that underlies the

Air Expeditionary Force concept.There is much to be learned from the his-torical reflections on military operations

contained in the following pages. Butbe assured the importance of operationallawyering is on the rise as we move for-ward into the next century as an Expe-

ditionary Aerospace Force.

1 Judge advocates occasionally became involved in “cleaningup” after an operation. For example Air Force judge advocateColonel Donald Brewer was legal counsel for LieutenantGeneral Lavelle who was relieved of command in 1972 forallegedly violating the ROEs in Vietnam. Colonel Brewerrepresented General Lavelle in congressional hearings on thematter. 2 In my own experience as a Cold War-era B-52 navigatorfrom 1983-1987, I never once read, was briefed on, or evenheard the term rules of engagement—and we were vaguelyinformed in passing once a year that we should comply withthe law of war while dropping nukes.


Major Leonard Broseker

The Korean countryside was devastated by war, the people poor, theeconomy at a low ebb.

The origins of the Korean War predate Japan’s official surrender in September 1945, ending the SecondWorld War. When a cease-fire was declared on 15 August1945, the United States and the Soviet Union established the38th parallel across the Korean Peninsula for the purpose ofassigning responsibility for accepting the surrender of Japa-nese forces.1 This resulted in the establishment of a de factointernational boundary and, after the Soviet Union balked atUN efforts to establish an independent Korean state basedupon free elections, the creation of two separate Korean na-tions: the Republic of Korea (ROK) in the south and the Demo-cratic People’s Republic (DPR) in the north.2

During the year before the beginning of hostilities, theROK endured communist harassment and an insurgency de-signed to bring down its government.3 Then on 25 June1950, under the pretext of responding to a ROK invasion ofthe north, the DPR invaded the south.4 Hostilities, in whathas been euphemistically called a “police action,” would lastuntil 27 July 1953 when the armistice was signed.5 The AirForce, having been established in 1947, was now engaged inits first major conflict. As the following article illustrates, AirForce legal officers were there. The Korean War has beenreferred to as “The Forgotten War” because of the inconclu-sive way in which hostilities ceased.6 There are few remain-ing Air Force judge advocate documents available to fill in the

FIRST MAJOR CONFLICTdetails of JAG involvement during this “Police Action.” How-ever, we will never forget thesacrifices made by those whoserved our Nation.

1 R. Ernest Dupuy and Trevor N. Dupuy, The Harper Encyclo-

pedia of Military History: From 3500 B.C. to the Present, 4thEd (1993), pp. 1309, 1354.2 Id., p. 1354.3 Id.; See, also, The Korean War, 1950 – 1953, American Mili-tary History, Army Historical Series, Office of the Chief ofMilitary History, United States Army, pp. 546.4 Dupuy, Supra note 1, at 1355.5 Id., p. 1365. UN casualties were 118,515 men killed, 264,591wounded, and 92,987 captured. American casualties were33,629 killed, 103,284 wounded, and 10,218 captured (only 3,746returned home). American non-battle deaths were 20,617. (Id.,pp. 1365, 1366). Fourteen UN member nations participated inaddition to the US: the UK, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Thai-land, France, Greece, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Colum-bia, Belgium, Ethiopia, Luxembourg, and South Africa. Den-mark, India, Italy, Norway and Sweden contributed medicalunits. (Id., p. 1366); See, also, The Korean War, 1950 – 1953,Supra note 3, at 556.6 See, e.g., Clay Blair, The Forgotten War, Times Books [1987].

A JAGandJeep inKoreaduringthewar.

Editor’s note: If you have more information on JAGs during the Korean War,please contact the editor at the Air Force Judge Advocate General School, (334)953-2802, or 150 Chennault Circle, Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6418.


In the Korean WarCOLONEL WALTER L. LEWIS

The following article was originally published in THE REPORTER, Winter1984, No. 2 (AFRP 110-2).

organization prepared to move within three days to New CastleCounty Airport (Wilmington) Delaware. The invasion of SouthKorea had begun. Scarcely three months later I was at NewCastle when the entire wing departed en route to Korea withonly 18 hours notice. Soon thereafter, I was called to active duty as a JudgeAdvocate and in January 1951 became a member of the firstclass in the newly-opened Judge Advocate General School atMaxwell. The curriculum was heavily weighted with the newprocedures and other changes required by the Uniform Codeof Military Justice which would take effect May 31, 1951.

Colonel Walter L. Lewis, USAF (Ret.) (B.A. 1947, Universityof Virginia; J.D. 1950, University of Virginia School of Law;LL.M. 1969, George Washington University) was commis-sioned upon graduation from the Army Air Force’s Naviga-tor School in 1944. He served with the 8th Air Force duringWorld War II, flying B-25s. Among Colonel Lewis’ combatexperiences was a crash landing in an English field follow-ing an attack by a German ME 262 jet fighter over Berlin. Inthe Air Force, Colonel Lewis’ assignments included Direc-tor of the Judiciary 1977 to 1979 and Vice Commander of theAir Force Legal Services Center 1979 to 1980.

The events of the summer of 1950 are now more than 33 years behind. At that timeI was a Reserve Judge Advocate on duty for training at Langley Air Force Base,Virginia. On a Monday morning at the end of June 1950, I entered the FourthFighter Wing Headquarters to find everyone and everything in turmoil as the

Bringing a Casualty in For Treatment

Photo courtesy of Colonel Walter Layer


“Cram Courses” in claims, fiscal law, personnel law, andlegal assistance were also included. While fighting a war atthe far edge of the Pacific basin and absorbing a large in-crease in the size of the active force, the Air Force legal de-partment had to prepare for significant changes in a major partof its workload—Military Justice—at a time when the numberof cases was several orders of magnitude greater than thosereflected in statistics for the 1970s and 1980s. My fellow students included balding or gray-haired reserveofficers called from civilian practice, young lieutenant lawyersappointed directly from civilian life and a number of majorsand senior captains (many still on active flying status) whoseemed to a young judge advocate to be hard-eyed monitorssent by the major commands to evaluate the effectiveness ofthe training as much as to gain new knowledge. Personnel stability for Air Force members was not an es-tablished policy or even a dream in the 1950s. I was reas-signed eight times between December 1950 and December 1954not including the 90 day temporary duty in the Judge Advo-cate General School and two other extended TDYs. Meetingthe Korea force requirement was a constant drain on “experi-enced” lawyers (those on active duty for at least a year). Theone year rotation policy in Korea meant even Staff Judge Ad-vocates with more than 18 months in place were scarce. For the Judge Advocate who went to Korea, living condi-tions did not improve. There was no family housing and nodependents were permitted. Quarters were often tents, some-times metal Quonset huts or other temporary buildings. Thesix-day work week was standard. Two rest and recuperationleaves of 10 days each—usually to Japan—were the only breakin the 12 month Korean tour. The Korean countryside wasdevastated by war, the people poor, the economy at a low ebb.The “interstate highway” that now stretches from Seoul toPusan was a two-lane sand and gravel road wide enough fortwo Army trucks to pass without slowing down below the 30mile an hour speed limit. Legal work loads were heavy. An exception was foreigncriminal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel, which the Koreangovernment did not exercise. However, foreign claims fromvehicle accidents, jettisoned ordnance and drop tanks thatlived up to their name kept claims officers busy. Military jus-tice under the new Uniform Code of Military Justice increasedthe workload over the procedures formerly followed and be-coming familiar with new procedures took time, especially withthe rapid turnover of personnel. Usually a base legal office in Korea had only two or threeJudge Advocate Officers and two enlisted personnel. Courtreporters for most general courts-martial cases were providedfrom a small central pool of NCOs and civilian employees inthe Headquarters Fifth Air Force Judge Advocate’s Office.“Experienced legal officers” (two or three years out of lawschool) soon found themselves in demand as law officers (theprecursor of the military judge) for the general courts-martialand junior officers traveled frequently to be counsel, espe-cially defense counsel, for trials at some of the eight bases theAir Force operated in Korea.

Short notice transfers, lack of adequate counseling ser-vices, concern about personal affairs heightened in the “shoot-ing war” environment and the inevitable stresses and inci-dents of long term family separation created a large legal as-sistance workload. Wills, powers of attorney, and financialproblems of dependents remaining in the U.S. kept both JudgeAdvocates and a limited clerical staff busy. One benefit of the Korean assignment was. that a JudgeAdvocate met more of his fellow Air Force lawyers during hisyear in Korea than he would in a much longer time elsewhere.Even 20 years after the conflict, a fellow “Korean alumnus”was nearly always found at a nearby base or in the same gen-eral court-martial jurisdiction. Air Force Judge Advocateswere no longer authorized to serve as air crew members aboutthe midpoint of the Korean Conflict. This assured their con-tinued performance of legal functions and contributed to amore cohesive legal service within the Air Force. Despite thestrains and disruptions imposed by short tours of overseasduty and frequent transfers, the increased use of lawyers incourts-martial following the adoption of the Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice and the growing demand for legal service out-side the military justice area contributed importantly to devel-oping a high degree of expertise and a sense of organizationalloyalty within the Judge Advocate General’s Department whichI believe has served the Department of the Air Force well insucceeding years. The Korean Conflict showed that the Judge AdvocateGeneral’s Department could accept as substantial a change aswas represented by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, makeit operate successfully in a wartime environment, and accom-plish the workload that was imposed upon them under condi-tions of active combat and with a large number of attorneyswhose active military service was less than two years. The Air Force and the Judge Advocate General’s Depart-ment have never again been as small as they were in 1950. Theexperience of the Korean Conflict provided experience whichhelped the JAG Department continuously improve its supportof the Air Force and its members and greatly increase the legalservices provided to its world-wide client.

Pho

to c

ourt

esy

of C

olon

el W

alte

r Lay

er

Marines on Siberia Hill. Three exhausted Marines sleep during a lull

in the battle somewhere along the First Marine Division front in Korea.


SAC’s beginning actually predatesthe establishment of the Air Force. On21 March 1946, SAC became one ofthree major combat commands of theUnited States Army Air Forces. In thebeginning, 37,092 personnel and 279aircraft comprised the Command withforces strategically placed among eigh-teen bases within the continental UnitedStates. Headquarters SAC was atAndrews Air Force Base, Maryland.

General Curtis E. LeMay, generallyconsidered the “Father of SAC,” wasnot the Command’s first commander asmany believe. General George C.Kenney had that honor, but served as

Commander in Chief of Strategic AirCommand (CINCSAC) for only approxi-mately two years. (General Kenney’sstepson, Bill Kenney, was a career judgeadvocate in the Department and retiredas a colonel. During my first assign-ment at Elmendorf Air Force Base,Alaska (1963-1967), Colonel Kenneybecame the Staff Judge Advocate ofAlaskan Air Command. He had manywonderful “war stories” about GeneralKenney and SAC.)

General Jones (B.A. and J.D., Univer-sity of Illinois; LL.M., George Washing-ton University) became the staff judgeadvocate of Strategic Air Command on1 July 1988. He is a member of theIllinois State Bar, the President of theBoard of Trustees for The Judge AvocateGeneral School Foundation, Inc.;President of the Board of Directors ofMake-A-Wish Foundation® of South-ern Nevada, and a lifetime member ofthe Eagle Scout Association. The au-thor extends his special thanks to Mr.Brian T. York, Curatorial Assistant,SAC Museum, for his invaluable assis-tance in furnishing SAC statistics andinformation.

“In SAC, EverythingIs

Predictable”One JAG’s Perspective of the Strategic Air Command

BRIGADIER GENERAL ROGER A. JONES, RETIRED

General LeMay became CINCSAC in1948, just before the Command movedto Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska—Offutt Field, as it was called at the time,was a Nineteenth Century Calvary sta-tion originally named Fort Crook. SAChad grown to nearly 52,000 personneland 837 aircraft spread over 21 activebases. The United States had becomevery fearful of the Soviet Union afterWorld War II, and President Harry S.Truman felt the Soviets were the majorthreat to world peace. General LeMayrealized he had to create a deterrent toany attack from what the United Statesconsidered its major enemy. The ColdWar had begun.

General LeMay worked diligently tobuild U.S. defenses and prepare for pre-emptive offensive action, if necessary.He served as CINCSAC for nine years,until he became Vice Chief of Staff ofthe Air Force in 1957.* When he leftSAC, it was a force of 224,014 person-nel, 2,711 aircraft, and the first U.S.nuclear missile—the SNARK. Someyears later, General Thomas D. White,

The United States Air Force has been a part of U.S. military historya relatively short period of time. Strategic Air Command (SAC)occupied an even lesser period. Both, however, have had a

dramatic impact on military history far beyond their years of existence.

Photo courtesy of B

rigadier General R

oger Jones

* General LeMay was appointed Chief ofStaff in July 1961, where he served untilhis retirement on 1 February 1965.

General Curtis E. LeMay andGeneral Jones at a StrategicAir Command dinner honoringGeneral LeMay.

You never let us down, you were alwaysprepared, you did your job well.


who had become Chief of Staff in 1957and had named General LeMay to behis Vice Chief, said:

[General LeMay] was the ar-chitect of Strategic Air Com-mand. He never swervedfrom the profound convictionthat the freedom of the USA(and the rest of the WesternWorld) depended primarily,and almost solely, on SAC.In my opinion, he was, at thattime, absolutely correct. Itis still true in 1964 to a greatdegree.

Though designed as a nuclear deter-rent by General LeMay, SAC also per-formed well in a conventional role dur-ing the Korean and Vietnam conflictsand the Gulf War. During Desert Storm,KC-135 Stratotankers and KC-10 Extend-ers flew 300 missions a day during thepeak of the build-up and B-52s were usedin the initial air assault against Baghdad.

I was very young when I firstbecame familiar with GeneralLeMay; my brother, Donald, wasa tail gunner in B-29s during World

War II, and participated in thirty bomb-ing raids over Japan. He was assignedto the 20th Bomber Command, com-manded by General LeMay. When mybrother returned home after the War, thename “LeMay” was not hallowed in ourhousehold. Donald felt General LeMayhad no regard for the lives of the bombercrews because of the dangers they en-countered in accomplishing the mis-sions he directed—low-level incendiaryraids, often at night.

Many years later I had the opportu-nity to visit with General LeMay andrelate that my brother had served underhis command in B-29’s. The General,notorious for being a person of fewwords, simply said, “He had a toughjob.”

As a reservist, Donald was recalledto active duty in 1951 and assigned toCastle Air Force Base, California, whichresulted in my initial experience withSAC—at the age of twelve. I visited

him and his family that summer and re-member how impressed I was with ev-erything about the Air Force. There isno doubt that my brother’s military ser-vice was a major impetus in my choos-ing a career in the Air Force, though,ironically, he never understood why Idid so.

I had little association with SAC un-til I had been on active duty for 21 years.In 1984 I was assigned to the Headquar-ters at Offutt Air Force Base as theDeputy to Brigadier General Keithe E.Nelson, Command Staff Judge Advo-cate. I had been there only two monthswhen the untimely death of an activeduty JAG gave me the opportunity tobecome the Staff Judge Advocate ofEighth Air Force, a SAC numbered AirForce. Although I had served as SJAat base and center levels for nine years,being an SJA in SAC was decidedly dif-ferent, and for me a wonderful experi-ence. It was a no-nonsense commandand discipline was tight. If rules wereviolated, appropriate punishment wasassured—no excuses, no exceptions. Itmade discharging discipline much morestraight-forward than I had ever known.

As an example of howSAC commanders enforceddiscipline, I remember viv-idly that while I was at

Eighth Air Force, the crew of a KC-135on temporary duty in Alaska refused toobey the orders of their aircraft com-mander to fly a mission. The crew feltthe weather made flying the mission un-reasonable, and they simply walkedaway from the aircraft and back to baseoperations. When the Eighth Air ForceCommander learned of the incident hewas furious. He called me to his officeand told me in very direct terms that thecrew must be punished. He knewweather conditions were bad, but he feltthe aircraft commander had made theright decision considering the missionand the surrounding circumstances.The crew had refused to obey a lawfulorder. The crew members received non-judicial punishment—that is the way itwas done in SAC.

I was again assigned to the Command

in 1988, when I became the Staff JudgeAdvocate. I replaced Major GeneralDavid C. Morehouse, who had beenappointed The Judge Advocate Gen-eral. He told me then that I was getting“the best JAG job in the Air Force.” Hewas right. I filled the position until theCommand was ordered to stand downon 1 June 1992. To serve as SJA ofSAC for four years was the most reward-ing, fulfilling period in my career. Therewas a certain awe that surrounded theCommand, even when assigned to it.Standards were higher; General LeMayhad made them so, on the premise thatthere can be no mistakes when nuclearweapons are involved. I recall that whenI left Nellis Air Force Base for my firstassignment to Headquarters SAC, mytwo-star commander presented me withstarched underwear. He said, “You’llbe wearing these a lot in SAC.” Hisgesture was symbolic of the attitudeheld by many Air Force personnel re-garding the Command; but no one everdoubted the dedication and profession-alism of SAC’s people.

While engaged in conversation at aSAC Commanders’ Conference, I triedto explain how impressed I was with theprecision of discipline in SAC. A field-grade commander knew exactly what Iwas trying to describe. He simply said,“In SAC, everything is predictable.” Itwas a perfect summation of the Com-mand.

Judge advocates werealways major participants inSAC’s mission. I think our rolewas best summarized during a

Public Affairs campaign in 1988 to em-phasize each agency’s support of thecommand:

The key to an effective de-terrent is a well-disciplinedalert force. As GeneralLeMay built this Command,he envisioned a fightingforce of warriors so strong,so resolute, so disciplinedand responsive, that no ag-gressor would dare attackus. That’s why things are a


We realized that SAC had accom-plished its mission. We had won theCold War without ever having to usea nuclear weapon.

Deterrence worked.

little tighter, a little tougherin SAC. The Americanpeople and perhaps, more im-portantly, our adversarieshave respected SAC’s capa-bilities for the past 40years—capabilities builtupon the highest caliber,best disciplined fighting menand women in the UnitedStates Air Force. Judge Ad-vocates are proud of the keyrole they play in maintainingSAC’s high standards.

At its peak, SAC had 283,000 person-nel and 3,400 aircraft for the security ofthe country. By 1978, the height of themissile age, the Command also had 1180Minuteman missiles. In 1989, however,the USSR began to crumble and theCold War faded. In November of thatyear, the Berlin Wall came down and thefree world breathed a huge sigh of re-lief. For me, and so many thousand oth-ers in uniform, there was a strong senseof accomplishment. That feeling wasespecially true in SAC. On 24 July 1991,Looking Glass, the airborne commandpost that had been in the air 24 hours aday, 365 days a year for 30 years, finallylanded. In September, President Bushtook the nuclear missiles off alert.

General LeMay died on 1 October1990. All general officers on the SACstaff attended his funeral at the AirForce Academy chapel. Seated in frontof us was the Chief of Staff and manyformer Chiefs. The guests of honor—

members of General LeMay’s staff—were escorted to their seats in front ofthe Chief. I was honored to be in thepresence of so much Air Force history.The CINCSAC, General John T. Chain,gave a very moving eulogy, and talkedof General LeMay’s dedication and bril-liance—”a patriot, who, without reallyworking at it, became a legend in hisown time.” He said, “General LeMay’smethodical construction of the Strate-gic Air Command is a colossal monu-ment to his foresight, determination—his leadership.” The service was themost emotional experience of my career.

Twenty months later, on 1 June 1992,Strategic Air Command stood down, 46years after its formation. It was a sadday for many of us who strongly be-lieved the Command had “set the stan-dard”—in the Air Force and through-out the Department of Defense. At thesame time, we realized that SAC had ac-complished its mission. We had wonthe Cold War without ever having touse a nuclear weapon. Deterrenceworked.

At the stand-down ceremony on 1June 1992, General Colin L. Powell, Chair-man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, summedup the career of SAC when he said:“...You never let us down, you were al-ways prepared, you did your job well.”I felt especially proud to be wearing theSAC badge on my breast pocket thatday.

Judge Advocates are proud of thekey role they played in maintainingSAC�s high standards.

Do You Know?1. Who was the first JudgeAdvocate General?

2. What day is the JAGDepartment’s birthday?

3. Who was the first Air ForceTJAG?

4. What year were paralegalsrecognized as such with anAFSC?

5. Who was the first Air ForceSenior Paralegal?

6. What year did JAGs have tochoose between flight or JAGstatus?

7. When was the JAG badgeapproved for wear?

8. When was the ADC programfirst implemented worldwide?

9. When was the paralegalbadge approved for wear?

10. When was the current AirForce Judge Advocate GeneralSchool building opened?

Answers:

1. William Tudor, appointed as JudgeAdvocate of the Army in July 1775.2. 25 January 1949.3. Major General Reginald C. Harmon,who served as TJAG from 1948 to 1960.4. 1955.5. Chief Master Sergeant SteveSwigonski, who served from 1970-1972.6. 1952.7. 11 December 1967.8. 1 July 1974.9. June 1994.10. The School was officially inaugu-rated on 21 May 1993.


Major General Moorman (B.A. and J.D.,University of Illinois) is The Judge Ad-vocate General of the United States AirForce. He is a member of the IllinoisState Bar.

When I became the Staff JudgeAdvocate for Air CombatCommand, I never anticipated

that it was a “flying job.” But, in a uniquemission held over from the darkest daysof the Cold War, I found myself frequentlyflying as the Airborne Emergency Ac-tions Officer (AEAO) in charge of theunique LOOKING GLASS mission.

The LOOKING GLASS, so named be-cause its mission was a mirror image ofthe ground-based command, control, andcommunications governing strategicnuclear forces, was first used on a trialbasis in 1960. Then called simply the Air-borne Command Post (ABNCP), it begancontinuous operations on 3 February1961. From that date, a LOOKING GLASSplatform remained continuously in the airin the vicinity of Offutt AFB 24 hours a

day, 365 days a year. And, during all ofthat time, a general officer was aboard asAEAO.

On 24 July 1990, after 29 years, 171days of continuous airborne operation,the LOOKING GLASS recorded its lastcontinuous airborne alert sortie. Thatchange reflected the changes in theworld, and it signaled the recognition ofthe changing realities of superpower re-lations. From that date forward, theLOOKING GLASS ceased continuousairborne alert operations and transitionedto a regime of combined ground and air-borne alert operations.

When Strategic Air Command (SAC)was deactivated in June 1992, LOOKINGGLASS became a part of the new U.S.Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM).AEAO duties since then have been car-ried out by general and flag officers fromUSSTRATCOM, U.S. TransportationCommand, ACC, Air Force Space Com-mand and the Navy’s Submarine GroupsNINE and TEN. Coincidentally, I was thefirst Staff Judge Advocate for

USSTRATCOM.The USSTRATCOM legal office imme-

diately became involved with the opera-tional aspects of this new unified com-mand. Our staff reviewed the single inte-grated operations plan and other plan-ning documents. We were involved incommand post operations, had a seat atthe battle staff, and otherwise preparedfor the possibility of strategic conflict.But, I never dreamed the day would comewhen I would step aboard the ABNCP ina flight suit. That opportunity came withmy selection for promotion to brigadiergeneral and assignment to Headquarters,Air Combat Command.

Upon my arrival at ACC, I becameaware that many of my fellow flag offic-ers were pulling duty as the LOOKINGGLASS AEAO. So, I threw my hat in thering as well. Initially, there was some hesi-tancy at the action officer level to acceptthe possibility of a JAG flying as theAEAO. Many of these action officerswere under the mistaken impression thatjudge advocates were not line of the Air

Flying “The Glass”MAJOR GENERAL WILLIAM A . MOORMAN

Photos courtesy of M

ajor General W

illiam M

oormanGeneral Moorman as AEAO in charge of LOOKING GLASS.


Force officers, and that we were disquali-fied from performing duties which in-volved command. Of course, the truth isthat while judge advocates are a sepa-rate promotion category for force man-agement reasons, in all other respects weretain the status of line officers. As thediscussion was elevated within ACC andUSSTRATCOM, the consensus was thatit was perfectly appropriate for a JAG tofulfill this role.

When I went to Offutt for my firstLOOKING GLASS flight, I had a notefrom commander in chief,USSTRATCOM, General EugeneHabiger, waiting for me in my room. Itsaid simply: “Great day. First JAG to flyon Looking Glass as AEAO. Don’t screwit up!” And, with those words of en-couragement, I began my flying days.

From my first flight, I found myselflooking at the Single Integrated Opera-tional Plan (SIOP) from a totally new per-spective—that of one who mightbe charged with advising thePresident on its execution. Ofcourse, that required lots oftraining in its specifics and theLOOKING GLASS operation.USSTRATCOM had a completetraining program established toteach future AEAOs all aboutthe SIOP and the processes thatgoverned its potential execution.Fortunately for me, my priortours at Headquarters SAC andUSSTRATCOM had taken muchof the mystery out of the plan. Ifound myself fairly comfortablewith the emergency actions de-cision-making process. In thisrespect, my service as a judgeadvocate was particularly useful.Not only was I familiar with theplan because of my prior assign-ments, but my skills in analysisof information, weighing evi-dence, and even advocacy wereuseful. The training also re-quired supervised orientationflights to ensure that I was pre-pared to execute the mission ifrequired. Those flights providedme the opportunity to becomecomfortable with the communications,life support, and other equipment aboardLOOKING GLASS. And, it was an op-portunity to work on crew coordinationbefore actually being placed in charge.In all, USSTRATCOM provided a superb

training process for each AEAO, and myexperience was no exception.

The composition of the battle staff onboard the EC-135 which we flew was stan-dard for all flights. In addition to a ro-bust communications staff, there was amission crew commander, operationscontroller, communications officer, a SIOPadvisor, plans and intelligence officer, lo-gistics officer, a force status expert, andweather officer. Just like the undergroundcommand center, the staff was subject tothe same stringent guidelines regardingthe execution of the SIOP and the launch-ing of the strategic forces (which in-cluded bombers, Intercontinental Ballis-tic Missiles and Submarine LaunchedBallistic Missiles). Conceptually, oncethe LOOKING GLASS assumed controlof US SIOP forces, the Glass could launchstrategic forces only after an elaboratevalidation process that assured completesecurity and operational integrity.

During each of my subsequent air-borne alert tours, we exercised a varietyof scenarios in order to hone our skills.Again, I found my skills as a judge advo-cate useful. As the AEAO, it was fre-quently important that I digest large

amounts of information quickly and thenask appropriate questions and direct ap-propriate follow-on actions. These weretasks for which my staff judge advocateexperiences perfectly prepared me.

The Airborne Command Post missionwas transferred from the EC-135 to theNavy E-6B “Take Charge and Move Out”(TACAMO) on 28 September 1998. I wasprivileged to fly aboard that platform aswell. The TACAMO enjoyed a numberof advantages over the EC-135, includ-ing a marked improvement in climate con-trol—each flight was far more comfort-able. In the EC-135, it was frequentlyadvisable to wear long underwear underyour flight suit in order to make sure thatyour legs didn’t freeze during the rou-tine eight-hour flights.

While the airborne alerts were long,they were seldom dull. On the typicalflight, we would work through a coupleof different scenarios during which mem-

bers of the crew role played a vari-ety of parts in a well-orchestratedrehearsal of what we might be ex-pected to do in times of real crisis.Not surprisingly, even simulatedconversations with the Presidentwill give you sweaty palms. Dur-ing periods when we were not ex-ercising, there was opportunity forgood dialog and just plain conver-sation. Many crewmembers askedme about life as a JAG, and I washappy to tell them some JAG warstories. Their reactions to some ofthe issues I had worked over theyears reinforced my satisfaction inbeing a JAG. Every time I put onmy flight suit at Offutt, I made surethat the patch on my left sleeve wasthat of the unit I had commanded—the Air Force Legal ServicesAgency. I was proud to say thatthe AFLSA was with me every timeI flew. Marking the end of an era andthe transfer of the mission from theEC-135 to the E-6B on 25 Septem-ber 1998, Lt Col Laddy F. Boveypiloted the first of seven EC-135aircraft into retirement at Davis-Monthan AFB. On that occasion,

he said, “This is one of the big factorsthat we can attribute winning the ColdWar to.” And, he was right.


an escalation of America’s involvement in Vietnam, character-ized by ever-increasing numbers of service members deployed;bloody, guerrilla-style warfare with an enemy that often couldnot be readily identified and unrest inside and outside themilitary.

During this period, tumultuous changes were taking placein American society and those changes were being reflectedin the culture of the United States military. Air Force judgeadvocates and paralegals (then known as “legal services spe-

cialists” or “legal services technicians”) serving in Vietnam,Thailand and locations throughout the Pacific were called uponto respond to unique challenges and circumstances. Many ofthese challenges were attributable to the political and logisti-cal complexities of the war and to the evolving social climateboth inside and outside the Air Force.

The first judge advocate arrived in Vietnam in 1962 and thefinal one left in the spring of 1973.2 For many veterans, theirfirst impressions of Vietnam still linger. Learning the “secrets”to living and working in a war zone was a clear priority. Ajudge advocate or paralegal serving in Vietnam had an unsur-passed opportunity for intensive on-the-job training. Mili-tary justice, claims and legal assistance filled the average duty-day. “Top-billing” in the military justice arena went to illicit

Captain Burke (B.S., University of Maryland; J.D., SouthernMethodist University) is an Instructor, Military Justice Divi-sion, Air Force Judge Advocate General School. She is amember of the State Bar of Texas.

Changing Times And New Challenges:

The Vietnam War

CAPTAIN DENISE M. BURKE

In the summer of 1945, America celebrated the end of World War II, but, in the midst of victory, newchallenges lurked on the horizon. On 19 August 1945, Vietnam was divided into two nations, thecommunist North and the democratic South.1 Soon, this small, Southeast Asian country that many Americans

had never even heard of would become the site of America’s longest and most controversial war. The 1960s saw


drugs, “white-collar” crimes including black-marketing and cur-rency violations; and disciplinary problems that were some-times exaggerated by tensions between racial groups and be-tween some young airmen and their superiors. Vietnam was aunique, memorable and rewarding experience for those judgeadvocates and paralegals that served.

“First Impressions”

[We] stopped at Anchorage, Alaska, for a cool hour, andthen a long hop to Tokyo before landing at Saigon’s ai r-port: Tan Son Nhut. The first thing you notice goingdown the ramp is a heavy, lousy, sweet smel l that floodsyour nose, along wi th a somewhat di rty feel ing al l around.Inside the makeshift customs bui lding, the heat you didn’ tnotice before begins to flush your head as the sweat starts toflow. Answer a few questions, surrender any guns, knivesand drugs and be quiet, we are told. Ants scramble updirty white pi l lars as we wait.

3

Among the most vivid memories of many Vietnam veteransare those of the living and working conditions they enduredduring their tours of duty. Debilitating heat, suffocating hu-midity, stinging dust and torrential rains were experienced bypersonnel stationed in Saigon, Da Nang, the Central High-lands, the Mekong Delta and throughout South Vietnam.

Living and sleeping areas were called “hooches” and thisterm was used to describe almost every imaginable combina-tion of tent, Quonset hut or wooden structure. Outside these“hooches” were sandbags and bunkers offering protectionagainst inevitable late-night mortar or rocket attacks. Onearea of Tan Son Nhut Air Base housing Air Force personnelwas called “Splinter City.” It was believed that if a rocket hitthe area all that would remain of the wooden buildings wouldbe “splinters.”4 Force protection was a 24-hour a day con-cern. Judge advocates and paralegals were issued weaponsand became part of the “second-line” of defense for manybases.5 This “second-line” of defense became very impor-tant if there was a threat of the base being “overrun.” Whenhe arrived at Pleiku Air Base in December 1969, SMSgt (Ret.)Steve Stevens’ M-16 was issued but kept locked up in thearmory and only returned to him during exercises. 6

Service members experienced varying degrees of difficultyadapting to Vietnam and the hardest times were often the firstthirty days in country and the last thirty days before returninghome. Off-duty time could be particularly troublesome. Manyof the bases in Vietnam were “closed,” meaning that person-nel were not permitted to leave the base even when off-duty.This restriction made finding ways to spend off-duty timeextremely difficult. At Phan Rang Air Base, near the SouthChina Sea, airmen made sporadic visits to the beach in ar-mored military personnel carriers. 7 Even personnel sta-tioned at “open bases” like Tan Son Nhut Air Base, near Saigon,faced the dilemma of what to do when they were not at work.Unlike many other places in Vietnam, Saigon offered some ofthe amenities of home. The Army ran an Officers’ Club affec-

tionately known as “BOQ One,” where military officers couldbe served a steak dinner at a table set with fine linen andchina. 8 However like many cities and towns in South Viet-nam, Saigon was chaotic, dirty, noisy, crowded and often dan-gerous, making it uninviting to some. Work was a welcomedrefuge from the boredom and loneliness.

Duty days were long. A normal duty week entailed working12 or more hours a day for 6 or 7 days per week. Such gruelinghours were actually a blessing in disguise because “it madethe time go faster.” The first legal office in Vietnam was at-tached to Headquarters 2d Air Division at Tan Son Nhut AirBase. As the war progressed, legal offices could be found intents, Quonset huts, colonial-style wooden buildings or evenout in the open. It was not uncommon for legal personnelbased at Da Nang, Pleiku or Cam Ranh to take their “show onthe road,” visiting accident sites, smaller outposts and troopsin the field.

“The Touring Claims and Legal Assistance Show”

The legal office was very sought after. JAGs and parale-gals took hel icopters, jeeps or whatever they could find andwent out in the countryside wearing flak jackets and totingweapons to investigate claims and compensate local vi l lag-ers. They also took care of the troops, doing a lot of legalassistance.

9

Claims work in Vietnam rarely involved the requisite house-hold goods claims; rather it encompassed a hybrid of pro-grams designed to compensate Vietnamese nationals for war-related damage. It included payments for damage to farmsand villages caused by military personnel and aircraft, theinvestigation of an unforgettable claim from a Cambodianprince, “rewards” for the return of U.S. property and solatiumpayments.

Judge advocates and paralegals were intimately involved inthe U.S. military’s efforts to compensate local nationals fordamages caused by war-fighting operations. Payments weremade for bombs dropped on rice paddies, for unexploded or-dinance that was jettisoned from aircraft returning to basefrom missions over North Vietnam and for pieces of aircraftthat fell into villages. Payments were frequently made directly

Photo courtesy of Lieutenant Colonel Robert Layer

Time for a Smoke Break.


to the village chief or elder. These efforts did not entail aformal claims investigation and payment process; rather, theytook the form of “quasi-solatium” payments.10

In the early 1970s, claims were being paid for damage causedby “Agent Orange,” a defoliant used by the U.S. military toexpose infiltration and escape routes used by the North Viet-namese and Viet Cong, including the infamous “Ho Chi MinhTrail.” Possibly the most memorable “Agent Orange” claim-ant was a Cambodian prince who alleged that Agent Orangehad destroyed his rubber tree plantation in Cambodia. Theclaim was coordinated through 7th Air Forcein Saigon, thoroughly investigated andeventually denied.11

To ensure the safe return of U.S. militaryproperty and to avoid military supplies end-ing up in the hands of the enemy, a compre-hensive “rewards system” was initiated. Un-der this system, Vietnamese nationals who re-turned military ordinance, pieces of aircraft andother supplies were compensated. Paralegalswould sometimes go out into the field to re-trieve the property and make payment.12 Pay-ments were made for human injuries as well asproperty damage. Solatium payments werecommonplace in Vietnam. These paymentswere an expression of remorse for accidentsor incidents that injured Vietnamese nationalsand involved the U.S. military in some respect. Solatium pay-ments were routinely made without regard to fault. For ex-ample, a Vietnamese national on a bicycle would recklesslycut in front of an American military jeep, causing an accident.However, if the bicyclist was injured, the U.S. military wouldmake a solatium payment to him or his family.

The legal assistance work in Vietnam was robust. The twomost common areas of assistance were domestic trouble andfinancial problems. The number of airmen seeking advice fordomestic problems was exacerbated by the presence of so-called “phantom writers” who would write explicit letters towives and girlfriends back in the U.S., detailing the “in-coun-try antics and romances” of fellow airmen.13 Judge advo-cates and paralegals drafted documents and provided adviceto airmen stationed throughout Vietnam. If the airmen couldnot come to the legal office at Tan Son Nhut, Cam Rahn, DaNang or other larger Air Force installations, the legal office

simply went to them.Despite the demands of long hours and a significant

workload, many judge advocates and paralegals found thetime to participate in the humanitarian efforts being coordi-nated by the U.S military throughout South Vietnam. Theyhelped to distribute food and other supplies to local nation-als. They also went out with teams providing medical anddental care. These efforts gave participants a much-neededbreak from work including the diverse and demanding militaryjustice workload.

Military Justice in the “Wild, Wild East”As in the legal world of today’s Air Force, military justice

was “job one” in Vietnam. In the late 1960s and early 1970s,7th Air Force administered the largest Article 15 jurisdiction inthe Air Force.14 Article 15s were given to airmen using mari-juana, to airmen who were late for work and to security police-men who were caught sleeping on post. Courts-martial wereconvened to try airmen accused of murder, rape, distributing

drugs, black-marketing and currencyviolations. Tensions between racesand between superiors and subordi-nates added a new and troublingdimension to the administration ofmilitary justice.

In 1968, a new version of theManual for Courts-Martial was pro-mulgated. Among the changes wasa requirement that military judges pre-side over special courts-martial. InVietnam, many young captains, somewith less than two years of experi-ence, were certified as judges for spe-cial courts-martial. When not actingas military judges, these same cap-tains would travel throughout thecountry, prosecuting and defending

other courts-martial. The jail at Long Binh that housed pris-oners awaiting trial or transportation back to stateside con-finement facilities was a frequent destination for many judgeadvocates. Military judges for general courts-martial traveledfrom the Philippines to hear cases. Pre-trial processing, courtreporting and some post-trial work was done by paralegals,giving them new and invaluable experience. In Vietnam, themilitary justice workload alone was enough to keep many judgeadvocates and paralegals busy. Drug use, black-marketingand currency violations were prevalent.

“The Drug Culture”

The guys in the barracks have thei r radio on al l day long,whether they are in or not. They’ re fool ing around wi th atape recorder now. Some are high on marijuana – it is

Capt Eric C. Michaux advises Col George A.Robinson, 366th Combat Support Group Com-mander, Da Nang Air Field, Vietnam (1970).

Legal Services Specialist A1CSteve Stevens at Phan Rang AirBase, RVN (1970)

Photo courtesy of SMSgt Steve Stevens


widespread here. I haven’t touched i t and don’t consider i tessential for a blast.

15

Drug use and distribution was a significant problem in Viet-nam. The drugs of choice were marijuana and heroin. Bothwere locally grown, inexpensive and readily available, oftensold by small children on the street. Some airmen used drugsoff base, patronizing opium “dens” and “red-light” districts inthe local community. Others were brasher, bringing drugs anddrug paraphernalia onto Air Force installations. In response,units conducted periodic barracks inspections searching forevidence of drug use or other contraband. Drug use perme-ated all ranks and positions. In 1970, a squadron commanderat Tan Son Nhut Air Base was prosecuted for purchasing,providing and using marijuana with his subordinates. Argu-ably signaling how “acceptable” drugs had become, the com-mander, a colonel, did not receive a dismissal following hisconviction.16

Major drug trafficking and distribution rings were alsoprevalent. Opium and marijuana were flown into Vietnam fromThailand and other places by aircrews who were compensatedby drug dealers for their services. Local nationals, Air Forcemembers and others set up profitable distribution operationsin the military clubs and barracks. While drug use was thepreferred diversion of some, black-marketing and illegalcurrency transactions were another favorite and profitable“pastime.”

The Emergence of “White Collar” Crime

Remember the Germans in Paris [in World War II]?We are doing the same thing here. … During Tet,when most of the people were starving and clean water wasscarce, the GIs were driving up to their girlfriends’ houseswi th trucks [of] food and clothes. … The goods sold onthe black market don’ t come from the Vietnamese, butfrom the Americans. We buy a Coke for 10 cents, sel l i tfor 25 cents and i t is in turn sold for 50 cents. The blackmarketeers have to be suppl ied and the GI loves to sup-ply him.

17

Black-marketing operations existed and thrived outsideAmerican installations all over South Vietnam. Military regu-lations prohibiting service members from running their ownbusinesses in Vietnam were no deterrent. Items ranging fromalcohol and food to air conditioners and spare parts could befound on the black-market. Many service members “went intobusiness” with each other and local nationals, funnelingAmerican goods onto the black-market. A cargo plane wouldarrive in the morning with pallets full of toiletries, food andother items and by the end of the day those same items couldbe found on the streets outside the base at a “healthy” mark-up. Many saw the potential financial rewards as worth therisk of being discovered. Some succeeded in operating virtu-ally undetected. Others, however, were investigated by theOSI and court-martialed.

Just as pervasive and innovative as the black-marketingschemes were the “currency violations.” The Military Assis-tance Command/Vietnam (MACV) had extensive and intricateregulations governing currency transactions. They coveredwhat type of currency could be used, how much a service

member could withdraw from the bank at any one time andeven required specific documentation as to the origin of cur-rency and a commander’s approval (via a “commander’s cer-tificate”) before currency could be deposited into a bank ac-count. When service members first arrived in Vietnam, theywere immediately taken into a customs area that resembled alarge cage. They were required to surrender all U.S. currency.Possession of U.S. currency was illegal in Vietnam. The U.S.currency was replaced by “military pay certificates” (MPC),colorful scrip in small denominations. The scrip was changedperiodically in an attempt to prevent black-marketing. A ser-vice member could use MPC to purchase items on base andsometimes in the local community. MPC could be exchangedon base for piastre, the Vietnamese currency.

All transactions at the base bank were closely monitored.Anyone checking the bank’s logbooks would know who wasexchanging or depositing MPC or piastre and how much wasinvolved. Bank officials and the OSI periodically checked thelogbooks, looking for hints of black-marketing or currencyviolations. Suspicious transactions and individuals were in-vestigated. Many service members were court-martialed forforging commander’s certificates, possessing U.S. currencyand attempting to deposit the “fruits” of black-marketing byfalsifying documentation that accompanied bank deposits.18

Black-marketing and currency violations were symptomatic ofa disrespect for and disregard of military standards and cul-ture by some airmen in Vietnam.

Disrespect for Military Standards and Racial Tensions

Have been having the usual (for me) sour and aggravatingexchanges wi th senior offi cers at MACV. It i s surpris-

Work was a welcome refuge fromthe boredom and loneliness.

Photo courtesy of Lieutenant Colonel Robert Layer


ing, even to me how l i ttl e Army discipl i ne and decorumhave influenced me. … In the past six weeks, I’ve told twomajors that i f they didn’t l ike my atti tude that was too bad.“I’m paid to work, not to say ’Yes, si r,’ ‘No, si r,’ I tel lthem.”

19

Not surprisingly, there were service members in Vietnam whodid not want to be there. Most completed their tour of dutywithout incident. Some, however, rebelled and lashed out atthe military and its command structure. It was common forairmen to be ordered to get haircuts, to wear the uniform prop-erly and to salute superior officers. Others were more brazenin their disrespect. An airman was court-martialed at Tan SonNhut Air Base for confronting and using a cane to threaten acaptain who was conducting a routine barracks search forcontraband. This airman had marijuana in his room for whichhe was also court-martialed.20 Occasionally, the threats andharassment toward superiors were potentially lethal. A secu-rity police sergeant was court-martialed in 1972 for writing aletter promising to kill the wing commander and later rigging aconcussion grenade to explode when the wing commanderopened the door to his office. Luckily, the grenade was dis-covered and safely disarmed.21

Disrespect for superiors was not the only morale issue inVietnam. Distrust and misunderstanding between racial groupswere problems that threatened unit cohesion and mission ef-fectiveness. At times, racial unrest collided head-on with themilitary justice system. Airmen of all races were offered Ar-ticle 15s and even court-martialed for offenses that had under-tones of racial intolerance and ignorance. Events such as theon-going struggle for civil rights, the assassination of DrMartin Luther King and the Travis Air Force Base race riots of1971 influenced the behavior and attitudes of some servicemembers in Vietnam.

From 1970 to 1971, Captain Eric Michaux was based in DaNang, but traveled throughout Vietnam defending courts-mar-tial. He was the only African-American judge advocate toserve with the Air Force in Vietnam and was a recipient of theBronze Star. Many African-American service members facingcourt-martial requested that Captain Michaux represent them.These requests were driven both by Captain Michaux’s court-

room abilities and a distrust that many African-American ser-vice members had of the military and its justice system.22

Commanders who were willing to “occasionally sit down withtheir men, both black and white, let their hair down, get toknow them and understand them in their environment” didmuch to reduce the level of racial mistrust and misunderstand-ing.23

Air Force commanders along with judge advocates workedto reduce the level of racial tension and mistrust in Vietnam byensuring that the justice system was fair and that punishmentwas meted out without a hint of prejudice. In the early 1970s,Air Force officials in Vietnam began collecting and comparingdata on Article 15 recipients and service members who werecourt-martialed. Statistics on race, numbers of actions andranges of punishment were scrutinized in an effort to makesure that the system worked as it should, free of racial bias orinfluence.24 These efforts protected the rights of service mem-bers and helped to ensure the integrity of the military justicesystem. Many of the racial issues that troubled the Air Forcein Vietnam would continue to demand attention at U.S. basesworldwide as the war in Southeast Asia drew to a close.

In the early 1970s, the U.S. military began a program of“Vietnamization” intended to turn the majority of the war fight-ing responsibility over to South Vietnamese troops and toincrementally withdraw American troops and influence. TheParis cease-fire agreement signed on 27 January 1973 offi-cially ended U.S. involvement in South Vietnam. A completepullout of U.S. forces was accomplished in April 1973. Judgeadvocates and paralegals served in Vietnam advising com-manders and providing legal services until the final pullout.The war in Vietnam has had profound effects on Americansociety and the U.S. military. Despite challenging living con-ditions and a formidable workload, Air Force judge advocatesand paralegals serving in Southeast Asia performed admira-bly, setting a standard for future judge advocates and parale-gals to follow.

1 Political division in Vietnam dates back to the end of WorldWar I with the Vietnamese nationalist movement aimed atending French colonial rule. The government of France resistedall Vietnamese efforts to achieve their independence, butfollowing Nazi Germany’s conquest of France in 1940, Japanmoved in on Indochina intending to incorporate that territoryinto its empire. After the defeat of Germany in 1945, the Frenchwere determined to reassert their colonial rule. However,President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1943 had urged the freeingof all colonial peoples, including those of Indochina, in thepostwar period.

During the last months of the war, U.S. agents had beenparachuted into the hills of Annam where they joined up withinsurgent forces led by Ho Chi Minh. These local forces,known as the Viet Minh, included both Communist and non-Communist elements, all united in their desire for independ-ence. The Americans brought with them a small supply ofrifles, mortars, machineguns, grenades, and bazookas and be-gan training Ho’s troops to use them against Japanese occupa-tion troops. On 15 August 1945, following Japan’s surrender,

Photo courtesy of Lieutenant C

olonel Robert Layer

Is the L.Z. hot? Vietnam, 1967


President Harry S. Truman issued General Order No. 1 govern-ing procedures for disarming Japanese forces in the Far East.In the case of Indochina, he designated the 16th parallel as theline north of which Chinese Nationalist troops would disarmthe Japanese. South of that line British forces were to acceptthe Japanese surrender. On 9 September 1945, when advance elements of about200,000 Chinese troops arrived in Hanoi, they found that HoChi Minh’s forces had already taken control of the northernregion, replaced all French street signs with Vietnamese ones,and issued a Declaration of Independence on 2 Septemberestablishing the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. On 12 Sep-tember British Commonwealth forces landed at Tan Son Nhutairfield outside Saigon accompanied by a detachment of 150French troops. Three weeks earlier Britishauthorities in London had determined torestore France’s administration ofIndochina. By 23 September the French,with the help of the British, reassumed con-trol of Saigon. The French subsequentlybegan negotiations with the Chinese topermit French military forces to move intothe northern part of Vietnam. An agree-ment was reached and, in March 1946, aFrench military force arrived at Haiphongto relieve the Chinese Army of its respon-sibilities under General Order No. 1. TheFrench commander, Gen. Jacques Leclerc, began negotiationswith Ho and, on 6 March, an accord was reached. Under itsprovisions, the French agreed to recognize the DemocraticRepublic of Vietnam “as a free state, having its Government,its Parliament, its army, and its finances, and forming a part ofthe Indochinese Federation and the French Union.” Further negotiations spelling out details of Vietnamese in-dependence got under way in the spring of 1946 at Dalat, at atime when Vietnamese guerrilla warfare was under way in south-ern Vietnam (Cochinchina). But the discussions foundered onthe issue of Vietnamese autonomy, whereupon the French an-nounced the establishment of an “independent” Cochinchinawithin the French Union. This act only exacerbated the situa-tion and stimulated guerrilla warfare in the south. Anotherattempt to reach an agreement came during the summer of1946, when Ho and a Viet Minh delegation traveled to Francefor 2 more months of discussion of the issue. Once again, thetalks failed over the issue of Vietnamese independence. TheViet Minh delegation returned home and, shortly after, forcescommanded by Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap launched a series ofattacks on French posts and truck convoys, inflicting heavycasualties and provoking general hostilities. 2 Interview with Brigadier General Edward F. Rodriguez, Jr.,USAFR, Mobilization Assistant to the Deputy JudgeAdvocate General, in Montgomery, Alabama (7 January 1999). 3 Letter from Specialist Richard Loffler, United States Army,36th Signal Battalion, 2d Signal Group, stationed at Long Binhand Bear Cat, Republic of Vietnam (5 December 1966), aspublished in W.W. NORTON & COMPANY, DEAR AMERICA:LETTERS HOME FROM VIETNAM 36 (1985).

4 Telephone interview with Colonel Richard Rothenburg, ChiefAppellate Military Judge, Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals(27 January 1999). 5 The “first-line” of defense were Security Police and othercombat troops. The “second-line” of defense was oftencomposed of support personnel including judge advocatesand paralegals. 6 Interview with SMSgt (Ret) Graham E. (Steve) Stevens, AirForce Judge Advocate General School staff, in Montgomery,Alabama (14 January 1999). 7 Id.8 Interview with Colonel Michael Emerson, Professor of Law,United States Air Force Academy at Montgomery, Alabama(27 January 1999). 9 Interview with SMSgt (Ret.) Chuck Busby, AFLSA/JAS, in

Montgomery, Alabama (19 January 1999).See also, “Travelin’ Judge” in this edition ofThe Reporter. 10 Busby, supra note 9. 11 Rothenburg, supra note 4. 12 Busby, supra note 9. 13 Id. 14 Emerson, supra note 8. 15 Letter from Specialist Richard Loffler,United States Army, 36th Signal Battalion, 2dSignal Group, stationed at Long Binh andBear Cat, Republic of Vietnam (8 February1967), as published in W.W. NORTON &COMPANY, DEAR AMERICA: LETTERS

HOME FROM VIETNAM 153 (1985). 16 Interview with Colonel Michael Emerson, Professor of Law,United States Air Force Academy at Montgomery, Alabama(27 January 1999). The case was United States v. Kehrly. 17 Letter from Sergeant Edward Murphy, United States Army,4th Military Intelligence Detachment, 4th Infantry Division,stationed at Pleiku, Republic of Vietnam (5 June 1968), aspublished in W.W. NORTON & COMPANY, DEAR AMERICA:LETTERS HOME FROM VIETNAM 149 (1985). “Tet” refersto the Tet Offensive launched in January 1968 during a declared“cease-fire” for the Vietnamese New Year. The NorthVietnamese and Viet Cong simultaneously attacked virtuallyevery military installation, town and hamlet in South Vietnam.Although US forces won a military victory, many believe theysuffered a “morale” defeat. “Tet” marked the end of anysignificant public support for the war in Vietnam. 18 Rodriguez, Jr., supra note 2. 19 Letter from Captain James Gabbe, United States Army,Historian for Military Assistance Command/Vietnam (MACV),stationed at Long Binh, Republic of Vietnam (3 January 1971),as published in W.W. NORTON & COMPANY, DEARAMERICA: LETTERS HOME FROM VIETNAM 151 (1985). 20 Staff Judge Advocate’s Review of Court-Martial, UnitedStates v. A1C Oscar Woodward, dated 12 June 1972. 21 Staff Judge Advocate’s Review of Court-Martial, UnitedStates v. Sgt Miguel Starr, dated 26 May 1972. 22 Telephone interview with Eric C. Michaux, Michaux andMichaux, P.A., Durham, N.C., (29 January 1999). 23 Seventh Air Force News, 18 November 1970 at 10. Thisarticle was a profile of Capt Eric Michaux and a frank discussionof racial tensions in Vietnam. 24 Emerson, supra note 8.

Barracks behind sandbag bunkers.Phan Rang AB, (1970).

Photo courtesy of SMSgt Steve Stevens


concrete-walled corrugated roofed build-ing of French colonial origins. Usingbookshelves, we divided one of therooms into three offices for JAGs. Threeenlisted paralegals and our Vietnamesecivilian secretary occupied the outer of-fice. We were equipped with a law li-brary consisting of U.S. Code Annotated,OpJagAFs, the ubiquitous Martindale-Hubbell, a Compendium of Laws, a set ofCourt Martial Reports, several 1951Manuals for Courts-Martial, standardsteel furniture, IBM Selectric typewriters,the old gray recorders for stenomaskcourt-reporting, and an issue of variousweapons, mostly M-16 rifles.

I was blessed with an excellent staff:Captains Will Denton and Russ Thomp-son, who were replaced with CaptainsHarry Teter, and Pat Elder. Only RussThompson made a military career of theAir Force, remaining on active duty, untilthe mid-70s and later serving in the re-serves until retirement. Pat Elder servestoday as an Air Force civilian attorney.They all performed superbly; trying anddefending cases all over the Republic ofVietnam, as well as managing a fullcaseload at Bien Hoa.

Our paralegals, all of them 705XX en-listed were equally outstanding: SMSgt(CMSgt ret. ) Billy Edwards was NCOIC;SSgt. (CMSgt. ret.) Bill Sutton was claimsNCO; MSgt. Joe Sizemore (deceased) wasMilitary Justice NCO; Sgt. John Laskis,and later Sgt (SMSgt. ret) Dick Longuilwere court reporters. Our Vietnamese sec-retary was Nguyen Ngoc Qui. Miss Quiwas a tiny, pretty, and demure lady whowas tough as nails when required to be.She commuted daily by bus from Saigonand rarely missed a day, even during theworst of the Tet Offensives. She was anasset, admired and cherished by all. Nowliving in southern California, she remainsin regular contact with all of us.

I was also very fortunate in my imme-diate supervisor, Colonel LesterArasmith, and in my supervisingMAJCOM SJA, Brig Gen. Jim Cheney(Maj. Gen. ret., deceased). ColonelArasmith was a fighter pilot, scholar, dis-ciplinarian, and teacher. He was a per-son of impeccable integrity, courage, andloyalty, who when I needed his support(a not infrequent occurrence) never failedme. He retired to teach school. General

volunteer to go to Vietnam, and was anx-ious to finally get the chance to run myown office, after three prior assignmentsas an assistant SJA.

Looking back, I believe this was a de-fining assignment for me. It was to be-come my only combat tour in thirty-threeyears of active service. It was the mostclear and compelling case for the propereducation, training and assigning ofjudge advocates and enlisted paralegals.Personally, I made friends there who areamong the best of a lifetime. Profession-ally, I came away convinced that a veryvisible, just, and efficient military justiceprogram is a key factor in the fightingcommander’s ability to assure unit cohe-sion, good order, morale and discipline -- absolutely essential to maintaining com-bat capability.

I arrived at Bien Hoa Air Base on 2March 1968, approximately one monthafter the launching of the 1968 Tet Offen-sive. Bien Hoa AB, situated approxi-mately 20 miles north of Saigon, on theriver Dong Nai, was home to the 3TFW,Three Corps Headquarters (ARVN); mostof the Republic of Vietnam Air Force(VNAF), a U.S. Army aviation battalion,and the rear headquarters of the U.S.101st Airborne Infantry Division. Dur-ing the first days of the Tet Offensive, ithad been partially overrun by Viet Cong(VC) regulars and had finally been suc-cessfully defended by USAF SecurityPolice forces, who repulsed the V.C. Theinstallation had suffered considerabledamage. Viet Cong units stationed in WarZone D, located north of Bien Hoa, andwithin rocket range, regularly shelled thebase. This shelling continued long afterthe Tet offensive, lasting throughout mytour of duty there and punctuating ourday to day routine with regular “reality”checks.

Our offices, located in the west can-tonment area along with the 3d CombatSupport Group (3CSG) activities, con-sisted of two large rooms in a single story

MAJOR GENERAL DAVID C. MOREHOUSE, RET.

A Year in Vietnam

Major General Morehouse (B.S., Univer-sity of Nebraska; J.D., Creighton Uni-versity; LL.M., George Washington Uni-versity) served as The Judge AdvocateGeneral from May 1991 until July 1993.He is a member of the State Bars of Ne-braska and Texas.

Photo courtesy of M

ajor General D

avid Morehouse

(left to right) MSgt Sizemore, Capt Teter,Maj Morehouse, Capt Thompson, Ms. Qui,Sgt Laskis, SMSgt Edwards

Thirty years ago I was assigned to Bien Hoa Air Base (AB),Republic of Vietnam, as Staff Judge Advocate (SJA), 3dTactical Fighter Wing (3TFW). It was my first SJA assignment. I’d

been on active duty 8 years, was on the promotion list to major, was a


Cheney had been a combat tested B-17aircrew member in World War II. He wasa fine lawyer, a loyal and inspirationalleader, who later served as The JudgeAdvocate General of the Air Force. Heremained a mentor for me in later assign-ments, especially when I served as TJAG.He died last April. He was truly a won-derful man, missed by all of us who knewand served with him.

Military justice was “job one”at 3CSG/JA. During my yearlong

tour, we tried 52 courts-martial, most ofthem Non-BCD Specials. We preparedArticle 15s by the hundreds. The mili-tary justice typewriters were seldom si-lent. This was to be expected at the big-gest and busiest operational air base in-country. (Actually, Bien Hoa AB was thebusiest airport in the world, includingChicago O’Hare, measured by takeoffsand landings). Enlisted paralegal courtreporters took all cases, including GCMs.The records were not things of beauty. Istressed timeliness and accuracy over er-rorless typing. We got the cases tried,reviewed, and approved quickly as pos-sible. Workdays began at 0700 and typi-cally lasted into evening hours. The work-week was six and one-half days. Thosewere not hard and fast hours. When theworkload slackened, so did we.

We received lots of TDY help with ourmilitary justice workload. Captains KenJoyce (Col. USAF, ret.) and Bob Gales(Col. USAFR. ret.) were frequently calledin to help. We traveled as well. I servedas Law Officer on several GCMs tried atTan Son Nhut (Saigon), and Capt RussThompson and Capt Will Denton wereon the road nearly as much as they wereat Bien Hoa. Will served as Acting SJA

at Binh Tuy for nearly a month duringhis tour.

Very little of our military justiceworkload was drug related. That scourgehad not yet hit the Air Force. Lots oftheft, black marketing, assault, and de-sertion; and for awhile, at least, we triedsecurity policemen for sleeping on post,a one year offense in a war zone. Thecourt members, in their wisdom, doomedthat process, giving Article 15 punish-ments and basically telling us to “coolit.” We did.

My greatest frustration in the militaryjustice practice was assembling courtpanels. Officers flat did not want to siton courts while there was a war goingon...they were at least as busy as we were.We were still operating under the oldcode, and trial by Military Judge alonewas not available. In fact, there were nojudges presiding at Special Courts-Mar-tial. The lay president of the panel wasthe presiding officer, and made rulingssubject to the objection of any other mem-ber. If a member objected, the court closedto vote, with a majority deciding usuallywith the president. Experience on thepanels was a must and was tough to comeby. Fortunately, we got some help laterin my tour from the fighter squadrons,who had many more pilots than cockpits,and were willing to provide junior mem-bers. But court member duties were notexactly what those fighter pilots had inmind, either.

Job two was claims. Not the usualpots and pans household goods

claims, but battle damage claims were thedominant workload, and often with frus-trating results. A few nights before myarrival, the Ranch Hand area of hooches

was hit by 122 mm rocket fire levelingseveral of them and destroying the con-tents of lockers, many of them contain-ing furs and jewelry bought on HongKong R & Rs and intended to make up athome for extended absences. I receivedexplicit instructions from the 3TFW com-mander, Brig Gen George W. McLaughlin(Maj. Gen. ret. deceased) to give theseclaims top priority. The Ranch Hand wasa squadron of C-123K herbicide (AgentOrange) spraying aircraft, whose missionin the war was one of the most danger-ous and most important. The pilots wereolder officers, mostly field grade, who hadbeen pulled from desk job assignmentsand sent to fight. General McLaughlindidn’t want their morale to suffer andeasily enlisted my support by orderingme to “make it right.” We (SMSgt BillyEdwards and SSgt Bill Sutton, primarily)processed and forwarded all 48 claimswithin a two day period. They sat, un-processed at 7AF for weeks. Therein liesmy earliest acquaintance with Captain(Brig Gen, ret.) Roger Jones. The WingCC regularly called me, and I regularlycalled Roger, to inquire on the status ofthose claims. Roger tried, but couldn’tbudge the 7AF/JA, to accept the fact thatpilots could typically possess furs andexpensive jewelry in the combat zone, butin any case to process the claims oneway or the other. 7AF/JA finally cameup to Bien Hoa and met with the crews toadjudicate, and finally deny the claims.The story ended happily at PACAF/JA,because General Jim Cheney understoodthe problem immediately, and approvedthem all.

Battle damage the USAF causedposed a different claims issue. We didn’thave an OPS Law mission then. I had novoice in the frag orders. Our crews, fly-ing F-100s (three large squadrons) andA-37s (one squadron) were engaged inclose air support of troops engaged withthe enemy. These missions were flownall over III and IV Corps (basically thesouthern half of RVN). It was when ouraircraft dropped a short round, or other-wise struck a friendly target that we gotinvolved. While actual damages werepaid in only the rarest occasions, andthen only after Congress had amendedthe law to permit it, solatium paymentswere always made when friendly civilian

Photo courtesy of M

ajor General D

avid Morehouse

Major Morehouse Relaxes In His Rack


casualties resulted. Solatium is a cus-tomary payment of regret, and intendedto be symbolic only; but was consideredto be of great importance. When the in-cidents occurred, the wing command postimmediately called legal, and we arrangedairlift to the site with the on base Armyaviation unit.

On one occasion, a 3TFW F-100crashed into a village in IV Corps, killing,among others, the village elder. We werecalled that night, and Russ Thompsonand I were launched early the next morn-ing along with an AF EOD team to takecare of munitions and recover the .50 cali-ber machine guns propelled from the air-craft on impact. We left equipped withM-16s, full protective gear, and a suit-case full of Vietnamese piastres. We hadbeen on the ground for four hours, ne-gotiating and expressing regret, when aUS Army mechanized company pulled upin their tracks and asked us what we weredoing there. They had come in to sweepand secure the village. I told the com-mander they were about half a day late.We had been advised the village hadbeen secured before we landed. He thenadvised us to stop payment because hebelieved this was an unfriendlyvillage...we let him know it almost cer-tainly would be if we stopped payment.We got payment approved, and clearedout of there, fast.

An additional duty of mine was as AFliaison to Long Binh Jail (affectionatelyknown as LBJ). Long Binh was the larg-

est military post in Vietnam, the major USArmy logistics center, site of Headquar-ters US Army, Vietnam (USARV) andHeadquarters II Field Forces, which ba-sically ran the war in III and IV Corps.LBJ was run by the Army, and was theconfinement facility the Air Force usedfor all in-country sentenced prisoners. Itwas the roughest environment for pris-oners I’ve ever seen. On one of his staffvisits, I took General Cheney to visit LBJ.He told me afterward he had to see it tobelieve it. Photographs were not permit-ted, even of the outside. Halfwaythrough my tour, the prisoners rioted, andburned every building, except the messhall, to the ground. The commandant,nearly killed in the riot, had to be airevacuated to Japan. His replacementbrought in connex’s, painted them black,and used them to house prisoners untilthe buildings destroyed could be re-placed. To add further insult to the in-jury of being incarcerated there, timespent at LBJ did not count towardcompletion of the one year tour of duty.I mentioned this fact with telling effectevery week at newcomers’ briefing.

Transportation was always anissue. In addition to having to travel

to Long Binh every week, just gettingaround Bien Hoa was a chore. Our issuevehicle was a Dodge pickup that was inthe shop the entire year of my tour, and Idoubt any successor, or for that matter,any predecessor, ever drove it. We hadbicycles issued, but to get to the eastcantonment area on a bike was both dan-gerous and time consuming. We finallyobtained an Army jeep on hand receiptfrom the OSI, who possessed it as evi-dence in a vehicle larceny case we even-tually prosecuted. We kept the jeep.What may at first appear callous and cyni-cally hypocritical, was in fact acceptingreality. When the Army lost a jeep, re-gardless of how, it was a combat loss;and written off. We couldn’t return thejeep, because it didn’t exist, having been“destroyed” in combat. There were sev-eral “mustang” jeeps driven by AF onBien Hoa, and for that matter, probablyall over Vietnam. The primary reason wasthat the Army was smart enough to useM-series vehicles while the Air Forceused commercial models which frequently

broke down, and for which there was nocommonality of parts. We were finallydispossessed of the jeep, and received aused Ford Falcon in its place. It was, infact, severely used and should have beenjunked, but it ran and we drove it.

We were quartered in hooches.These were huts built on con-

crete slabs with wooden frames, corru-gated roofs, and screened sides with lou-vered walls that could be swung out fromthe screens in hot weather. Hooches typi-cally housed eight persons. We JAGsquartered in Hut 135, along with a Catho-lic Chaplain, Army and Air Force intelli-gence officers, and at various times main-tenance officers, and helicopter pilots.Hut.135 was well equipped with bar andbar stools, refrigerator, potable watercooler, television set, dart board and cardtable. Behind—right behind—eachhooch was a sandbag and PSP (perfo-rated steel planking) bunker. Each occu-pant had his own “private” area, consist-ing of a bed and locker, and separatedfrom others by very little else. The latterout of necessity, as circulation inside wasof utmost importance. To reduce heat in135, we insulated the ceiling with usedcardboard shipping boxes. It worked,and it was not an unpleasant livingenvironment...certainly not when com-pared with what the troops in the fieldhad to put up with.

Hut 135 was within easy walking dis-tance of everything inside the west can-tonment area, about halfway between ouroffice and the squash court. The offic-ers mess was a few steps away, and thecommon latrine/shower area was right outthe front door.

Bien Hoa AB was situated on the northside of Bien Hoa City. Bien Hoa City wasoff-limits following Tet, and we went inonly with the OSI. North of Bien HoaAB, the river Dong Nai, or Song DongNai, cut a series of loops which formedthe southern boundary of War Zone D,and which was known as the “catcher’smitt.” Enemy forces controlled Zone D,on the ground, at least and certainly atnight on the ground, and it was from“catchers mitt” that Viet Cong forces fired122mm rockets at Bien Hoa. They in-vested considerable effort into this work,for very good reason: they endured lots

SMSgt Edwards, Ms Qui, and MajMorehouse

P

hoto

cou

rtes

y of

Maj

or G

ener

al M

oreh

ouse


of punishment from combat sorties flownfrom there. They were able to supportthis effort logistically from sanctuarieslocated in Cambodia, which were withinrelatively easy reach of Zone D. Becauserocket attacks could be most success-fully launched at night, Air Force forwardair controllers (FACs) flying 0-2s, flew all-night missions watching for launches outof Zone D. Launched rockets, trailingbehind them a fiery rooster tail, were eas-ily spotted. The alarm was promptlysounded; and we typically had twentyseconds to get from poker game, dartboard, bar, latrine, shower, or bed to bun-ker. Counter-battery fire from friendlyforces was almost immediate, but by thenthe V.C. were gone. Unless the warheadhit or near-missed a bunker, occupantswere safe. The shrapnel was vicious, butbunkers usually were well enough madeto protect all but the most unfortunate.So, getting to bunker was important; andwe became very proficient. The V.C. wereproficient at their work, also, and on oneattack landed a round in the VNAF bombdump. The ensuing explosions and con-cussion broke windows as far away asLong Binh. Fortunately for us, we didn’thave any windows to begin with.

B-52 missions were frequently flown

over Zone D. Although miles away, con-cussions from the attacks would walk youand your bed across the concrete hoochfloor.

We often wondered why enemyforces were permitted to resup-

ply so readily. After President RichardNixon was sworn into office in early 1969,he approved strikes into Cambodia to at-tack and destroy enemy logistics capa-bilities. The reaction at home was imme-diate. Students and others rioted; Presi-dent Nixon, the Establishment, and thearmed forces were vilified; and JaneFonda was featured posing in Hanoi withan NVA anti-aircraft battery. We couldalways win on the field of battle, but thefield of public opinion was another mat-ter.

On return, and after reading and re-flection, it was not hard to see why wefailed in Vietnam. There was no will inthe political leadership, especially theCommander-in-Chief and Secretary ofDefense to win the conflict. They onlywanted it contained — winning requiredtoo great a political effort and cost.1

I was lucky. I came out unscathed asdid most of us serving in a support role.But those in direct combat paid a terrible

price for what was essentially derelictionof duty on the part of their senior politi-cal leadership. For me, it was a great as-signment; a career definer. Friendshipsmade there persist strongly today. HarryTeter and his wife, Kathie, are dearfriends, and I am godfather for their won-derful daughter. Hut 135 celebrated our30th anniversary together in Vietnam at areunion in Biloxi, Mississippi, hosted byWill and Lucy Denton and Russ and LucyThompson. Sally and I attended, as didDon Sheehan, the former Chaplain, nowlaicized, and a retired federal probationofficer; Jay Ballentine and JohnOsterlund, O-2 Sleepytime FACs, both se-nior airline pilots; Jon Long (Lt.Col.,USAF, ret.), an HH-43 rescue helicopterpilot, now airport manager for Sacramento,California; Russ, Will, Will’s brother, PeteDenton (Colonel, USA, ret., then sta-tioned at Long Binh), Ken Joyce, BobGales and families. Miss Qui and otherswere there in spirit. We cherish one an-other, and our year in Vietnam.

1 See H.R. McMaster, Dereliction ofDuty: Lyndon Johnson, RobertMcNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staffand the lies that led to Vietnam(Harper Collins 1997).

PURPLE HEART RECIPIENTS

At least three Purple Hearts were awarded to judge advocates serving in Vietnam. George R.Stevens received the Purple Heart in 1972 while serving with the 483d Combat Support Group

at Cam Ranh Bay. With less than 48 hours left in Vietnam, he was injured in a rocket attack. InAugust 1971, Charles L. Wiest, Jr. was injured in a grenade attack in Saigon. At the time, he wasassigned to the 377th Combat Support Group at Tan Son Nhut Air Base. Colonel Otto Kratochvil (now retired) received the Purple Heart while assigned as the Staff JudgeAdvocate for the 2d Air Division (AD), then headquartered at Tan Son Nhut Air Base in Saigon. Hearrived in Vietnam in June 1964. At the time, U.S. military personnel were officially functioning asadvisors to the South Vietnamese armed forces. However, the U.S involvement in Vietnam quicklyescalated following the Gulf of Tonkin incident in August 1964 when a U.S. Navy ship steaming in

international waters off the coast of South Vietnam was targeted by North Vietnamese forces. Immediately following theGulf of Tonkin incident, Viet Cong snipers, booby traps and bombings became common in Saigon. Orders directing thereturn of all U.S. civilian employees including 2d AD’s female court reporter were issued. After escorting her to thecivilian air terminal at Tan Son Nhut, Colonel Kratochvil and members of his staff were leaving the terminal when a largesuitcase full of explosives detonated, throwing them to the floor and showering them with glass and debris. ColonelKratochvil was later treated for cuts to his head, neck and right hand. He argued with the treating physician who wantedto record his name, rank and serial number. Colonel Kratochvil did not want to appear on “any list.” But, his name did laterappear on a list: a list of Purple Heart recipients.

(By Captain Denise Burke)


There are no deserts or cactus in South Vietnam’s northcentral highlands, nor are there gold rush towns or cattle

towns or cattle drives, and yet there is one 28 year old AirForce captain who has brought a touch of the Old West to thearea around Pleiku Air Base.

Dressed in fatigues, combat boots, and helmet rather thanchaps, cowboy boots, and ten gallon hat, Capt. John F. RudyII is out riding the trails of South Vietnam, bringing legal aid tothose who desire it with the same spirit and dedication as theOld West’s fabled circuit riding judges.

Although Captain Rudy’s services may never match thelegendary exploits of Judge Roy Bean, grand-daddy of all cir-cuit riding judges, who brought the law to the people west ofthe Pecos River, the young Air Force officer nonetheless hasearned the name of the “traveling judge of Pleiku” from theofficers and men manning the outposts he serves in the Pleikuarea.

Captain Rudy, a 1963 graduate of [American University’s]Washington College of Law, has added a modern twist to theold profession of circuit riding. He make[s] his rounds bymotorcycle. Accompanying him along the trails is Air ForceSSgt. William D. Rice, [age] 33, of Kingston, N.Y., who ridesshotgun, armed with an M-16 rifle, a portable typewriter, andan envelope full of legal forms.

When Captain Rudy left his home in Washington, D.C., it ishighly unlikely that he ever dreamed of bouncing around SouthVietnam’s north central highlands at the controls of a Honda90 motorcycle with a sergeant hanging on behind, and yetluck and necessity guided him into probably one of the strangermissions in the Vietnam War.

Captain Rudy was not always in the circuit riding business,however. When he was ordered to the Pleiku Air Base to openits legal office in April of 1966, his introduction there was lessthan heartening. There was no housing for a legal office andno office supplies, save a few legal forms he’d wisely broughtalong from his former post at Cam Rahn Air Base. But by theend of the month, the base’s first legal office opened for busi-ness in one-third of a “tent/hootch,” furnished with two roughhewn tables and a single chair. Legal documents were eitherhand printed or typed during off duty hours with a borrowedtypewriter. In June, the legal office found a more permanenthome, sharing quarters with the base finance office. The fol-lowing month a bonanza of office furniture arrived—two desks,four chairs, and a bookcase.

By this time, Captain Rudy had also acquired his assistantand traveling companion, [SSgt] Rice. Together they put theoffice on an operational basis, serving the legal needs of theofficers and men of the base. Transportation problems, how-ever, restricted them to the base area and kept them out of thefield.

Lady Luck, however, was to change all of this and set upCaptain Rudy and [SSgt] Rice in the circuit riding business.Captain Rudy had bought a ticket in a charity raffle sponsoredby the 62nd Aviation Battalion at a neighboring air base, andwhen the winner was announced the surprised captain foundhimself the owner of a Honda motorcycle.

A less enterprising man than Captain Rudy would haveprobably been dismayed at his miserable luck of winning amotorcycle in an area where there was only one road, SouthVietnam’s Highway 1. The young officer, however, lookedupon his prize as an answer to the problem of reaching thetroops in the outposts surrounding Pleiku—troops which be-cause of their own lack of transportation, or location, or dutyassignment found it impossible to make the trip into Pleiku.

As one member of a Marine reconnaissance team who re-cently returned from Vietnam pointed out, the going would beextremely rough because the area has no roads except forHighway 1, and its terrain is a tangle of dense undergrowth,vines, and swamps. Not bothered by the fact that they mighthave to blaze their own trail and do so in temperatures whichsometimes ranged as high as 140 degrees and in torrentialdownpours which mark the rainy season, Captain Rudy and

Travelin’ JudgeReprinted by permission. Originally published in LOADSTAR, an American University Magazine, Vol. 20, Winter 1967.


[SSgt] Rice fired up their cycle and headed out into the boon-docks, taking the legal office to the troops.

Because of the lack of legal officers in the field, the team hasexpanded its assistance to include Army as well as Air Forceunits stationed in the Pleiku area. The greatest demand for itsassistance is in the drawing up of powers of attorney, bills ofsale, and wills along with acting as notary public and occa-sional counseling for men facing courts-martial orArticle 1 5s ...

In the field, Captain Rudy and [SSgt] Rice set up shop wher-ever they can, often as not operating out in the open when atent, hootch, or building is not available. Their area of respon-sibility has increased as they sometimes respond to calls forlegal assistance from units stationed in outlying provincessuch as Kontum, Darlac, Binh Dinh, Phu Bon. On some of itslonger jaunts into the bush, the team abandons the Hondatemporarily and flies into the area instead.

In August of 1966, the team met one of its severest tests asthe Army and Air Force began building up their troop strengthfor “Operation Paul Revere II,” a search and destroy missioncarried out near Pleiku Air Base. Overnight, as the units pouredin, tent cities sprang up in previously bare fields, and CaptainRudy and his assistant found themselves faced with an in-creasing number of calls for legal assistance. Again theypacked up the legal office and headed for the field.

During August and the duration of “Operation Paul RevereII,” the two-wheeled legal office logged more than 200 back-breaking miles over the tortuous terrain of the north centralhighlands, assisting almost 100 men with their legal problems.

And as they bounced along from unit to unit, it was not un-usual for them to stop along the way to respond to unofficialrequests for legal aid.

While putting in as many as 12 hours a day on board theirmotorcycle or in the legal office at the base, Captain Rudy and[SSgt] Rice still find time to set up and operate a civic actionprogram among the Montagnard people in the village of PleiBre, just north of Pleiku.

Their most pressing problem is to provide the villagers witha source of fresh, pure water, which has involved building adam and spillway and a cistern to collect and hold the water.Along with this project, they are also making businessmenout of some of the villagers. Captain Rudy and [SSgt] Ricepurchase hand carved crossbows from the villagers, whichthey resell at cost to Air Force personnel. The two men alsohand out small bars of soap to the women of the village, and ofcourse, as typical U.S. servicemen, they always keep a supplya chewing gum on hand for the village children.

The work of the captain and his sergeant has not goneunnoticed or unrewarded by the villagers of Plei Bre. In Au-gust, Captain Rudy and Sergeant Rice became tribal bloodbrothers of the village chief. In the traditional rice wine cer-emony of Montagnards, the two men were presented withbronze bracelets by the chief. The chief’s clasping of thebracelets around the right wrist of each man signified he hadbeen accepted as a tribal blood brother of the village. Follow-ing the chief’s presentation of the bracelets, other villagershave since invited the two men to take part in similar ceremo-nies.

Captain Rudy also helped the Montagnard chief fulfill awish. The chief wanted a picture of President Johnson tohang in his hut and asked the captain if he could obtain onefor him. Captain Rudy wrote to the President, explaining thecivic action program in the village and informing him of thechief’s request. On August 30, President Johnson... [re-sponded with the requested photograph and praise for theCivic Action Program.]

Perhaps the “traveling judge of Pleiku” and his assistantwill never attain the legendary fame of their predecessor JudgeRoy Bean, but for the servicemen they aid and for the villagersof Plei Bre, Captain John F. Rudy II and SSgt William D. Riceare writing their own brief but lasting bit of history as theycycle through the north central highlands of South Vietnam.(Editor’s Note: John F. Rudy, II, retired as a Colonel fromUSAFR)

Motorcycle Riding judge advocate Capt JohnRudy, II asks the Montagnard Chief of the vil-lage of Plei Bre whether there were any VietCong in the village. The Montagnard Chief ispointing in the direction of the Viet Cong forceand advising Capt Rudy that they were �overthere.� The next picture, reports Colonel Rudy,if taken, would have shown the incredulity onhis face.


Editor�s Introduction. In our wildest imaginationsand worst nightmares, few of us can imagine theheroism, patriotism and sheer desire to survive dis-

played by our prisoners of war. Our hearts fill with pride andour eyes with tears when we hear of the torture that theyendured, the camaraderie they shared with fellow prisonersand the extraordinary sacrifices they made. During theircaptivity, they suffered the unimaginable and some lived totell their story. Colonel Henry Fowler served his country forthree years in the Navy as an enlisted sailor, then again as anAir Force pilot and then a judge advocate for a total of 26years. He was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for 5 years, 10months, and 23 days of that time. The following extract wasadapted from remarks Colonel Fowler shared with JASOC Class99-A, the last JASOC class in the Department’s 49th year ofexistence. This is the first time Colonel Fowler’s experienceshave been put into writing. We are very grateful to him forallowing the Air Force Judge Avocate General School to record,transcribe, and publish his remarks. Here is a fraction of hisstory:

Colonel Fowler. After entering the Air Force in 1964,completing Officer Training School at Lackland AirForce Base in Texas, and flight school at Williams Air

Force Base in Phoenix, Arizona, I got my first choice of air-plane and picked the F-4 Phantom. I understand the F-4 is notgreat compared to what you have today, but thirty years agothis was the cream of the crop. I carried four heat-seekingmissiles and four radar controlled missiles. My top speed wasMach 2.1, about 1400 miles per hour. After getting checked

Prisoner of WarCOLONEL HENRY P. FOWLER,

RETIRED

out at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, I was as-signed to Uban Royal Thai Air Base in Thailand.

The Shoot Down. Around November of 1966, Iarrived at Uban Royal Thai Air Base, from whence Istarted flying missions over Vietnam. On March 26,

1967, four Phantoms were scrambled out of Uban. I, a brandnew lieutenant with less than six months in service, had theprivilege and honor of flying the lead airplane. Our missionwasn’t to hit anything but to guard 90 F-105s coming out oftwo other bases in Thailand. Their mission was to strike abarracks and storage area deep within Hanoi, the capital cityof North Vietnam.

We joined up with the 105s, headed north, traveled a dis-tance and refueled. We hit North Vietnam with a normal profileof 10,000 feet at 600 miles per hour. The flight in was ratheruneventful, except, that they had radar and knew we werecoming. The firepower directed against us was always abso-lutely horrendous. The only way I can describe how it lookedis to tell you that it appeared as though a thunder storm wasbuilding in front of your nose every inch of the way as you’removing along at 10 miles a minute. We got to the target with-out incident. The 105s dropped their bombs and started outand, since our job was to guard them, we did too. Soon afterleaving the target we received a radio call that I’m sure all ofyou have heard in old war movies, “Bandits 9 O’clock low,”which meant bad guys below. Looking over the left side of theairplane, I saw what I thought were four Russian-made MIG 21fighter interceptors. Since our job was to guard the 105s, andsince all fighter pilots like to shoot at anything that moves and

Colonel Fowler (B.A., George Washington University; J.D.,Cumberland; National University in Washington D.C.) re-tired from active duty in August 1991. He lives with his wife,whom he met on the airplane home from his POW experiencein Vietnam, in Alabama. He speaks about his experience atthe AF Judge Avocate General School, among other places.He is a member of the Alabama State Bar.

The editor gratefully thanks Technical Sergeant ElizabethA. Smith for transcribing Colonel Fowler’s remarks.

I�m hit!! Col Fowler�s F-4 Phantom goes down.


a few things that don’t, we jettisoned our external fuel tanksand dove on the MIGs. We dropped in behind them, right offthe ground, at speeds that make lines of telephone poles looklike picket fences. For some reason, the MIGs didn’t want tofight and ran for home. Immediately we recognized followingthe MIGs east would cause a problem because all of our KC-135s were several hundred miles west and a jet fighter is notthe epitome of fuel efficiency. With this in mind, we decidedthat discretion was the better part of valor and headed forhome.

I began to pick up an awful racket and sight picture indicat-ing the enemy was sending me a “present.” Looking out theright side of my airplane, I saw two SA-2 missiles coming atme, one in trail of the other. While you can’t outrun one ofthese — they travel much faster than the speed of sound —the missile can’t turn well because of their small flight controlsurfaces - wing, tails, etc. So, if you know one is coming, andyou have a lot of speed built up in your airplane, you canhopefully avoid these. However, since I was climbing and hadslowed down, I couldn’t get out of the way. They both hit myairplane and over the next few minutes I went from a nice air-conditioned cockpit, “king of the road” type thing, to disaster.

Fire was everywhere after the initial hit. The fire warninglights of both engines were on as smoke and fire filled thecockpit; all three hydraulic systems were drained (which meansthat one now has no control over his airplane) and I had adecision to make. I could sit there and burn to death, a thoughtnot particularly appealing. I could ride the airplane to theground, if it got that far, and hit something at 600 miles perhour, or I could get out. It should be obvious which one Ichose.

I left my airplane at a high rate of speed. I received a com-pression fracture of the lowest vertebrae of my back, for whichI didn’t see a doctor for the next six years. I landed 24 milesfrom Hanoi, not the best place to go that day. They had dogsand, of course, found me in about ten minutes. I was strippedof everything I had except undershorts. I was tied with somevery coarse ropes and walked for the next eight hours with afractured back. Of course, every time we came to a village,they wanted to show off their prize, so I was hanged andstoned. Then I was driven for four more hours. It took 12hours to go the 24 miles to the prison. Anyway, at about threethirty in the morning, we arrived at everybody’s favorite re-sort of the Far East, the home I was to have for the next sixyears that we affectionately called the “Hanoi Hilton.”

Life in the Hanoi Hilton. Let me tell you a little aboutthe cells in the Hanoi Hilton. They were solid concrete;usually either without any windows or with a window

boarded up, and measured exactly seven feet wide, by ninefeet long, by approximately 20 feet high. A 40 watt bulb hungfrom the ceiling and burned 24 hours a day. For the six yearsof my imprisonment, there were many items we take for grantedin this country that I never saw. I never saw a toilet — we hada small bucket in the corner of each room. For six years wedidn’t see a bed — we slept either on wooden boards or ce-ment pallets. As it turns out, that was probably the best thing

I could have done for my fractured back. For six years wedidn’t see shoes — we were finally given “Ho Chi Min slip-pers,” old tire treads with straps. For six years, we didn’t seehot water.

We were given rudimentary supplies such as a mosquitonet. Mosquito nets are very important in that part of theworld. Without one, we would never have gotten any restbecause of the multitude of mosquitoes. We got a straw matto put between us and on which to sleep. We had one horseblanket. Our only clothes were two lovely pair of pajamasdecorated in beautiful vertical stripes of pink and purple. Ithink Charles of Leavenworth made them for us.

Once every sixty days, we were given a very small bar ofpure lye soap about the size of personal-size Ivory. We coulduse that on anything we wanted. The important point wasthat it had to last 60 days. Once every ninety days, if theguards felt that we deserved it, we received a small tooth-brush and a very small tube of toothpaste. It was some of theworst stuff that I have ever placed in my mouth. Interesting, itwas obviously made in Hanoi for export because on it’s labelin English it said: “Much Bubble, Nice Taste.”

Daily life there went something as follows: At about 5:00 to5:30 in the morning, they would beat on a gong and we would

Horrors of POW cell life are recreated at HeritageHall, SNCO Academy, Gunter Annex.


have to get up. For the next one and one half-hours, each ofus would exercise, trying to keep ourselves in the best condi-tion we could. We would end the exercise period by runninga mile in place (since you can’t run very far in a 7 x 9 room). Atabout 7:00 to 7:30, the guards would begin to work their wayaround the prison, opening each door individually and lettingthe occupant(s) out to empty the bucket of human waste. Ifthere was any cold water, we were allowed a short cold-waterbath and after about 15 minutes the guards would place usback in the cell. When I first went in, I spent three months insolitary confinement until I got a roommate. I was fortunatebecause I was a brand new first lieutenant — less than 6months in grade. The majority of senior officers spent fouryears in solitary confinement. After the brief time outside thecell, barring some form of interrogation, we sat on the edge ofour bunks with nothing to do until the first of our two dailymeals came. We were never given anything to occupy ourminds.

Everybody thinks thatfor six years I enjoyed fish headsand rice. The reality of the situa-tion was far from that. If you everneed a good diet, ladies and gentle-men, come see me, because I havean excellent one: Take away yourfood and beat you up night andday. I went from 190 to what wasestimated at 87 pounds in 60 days,and kept the weight off for sixyears. It went off so fast that I hadstretch marks. The simple rule is:You can eat or you can die. Allthe worms, parasites and every-thing else, you can get rid of. Onceyour life is gone, it’s gone forever. For two meals a day, twelvemonths of the year, we ate the ex-act same food; soup and some-

times bread. We enjoyed pumpkin soup in summer, cabbagesoup in the fall, and turnip soup in the winter. In the spring, itwas exceedingly difficult for me to tell you exactly what we dideat, but I think if you were to mow your lawn and boil it, thatwouldn’t be too far off. Occasionally, we were given rice. Onvery rare occasions, maybe three times a year, we received astrand of meat. In July 1967, I received my first strand of meat.It smelled terrible, tasted worse and was wrapped around avery tiny little jagged bone that I couldn’t recognize. My firstthought, being a typical American, was to throw it away. How-ever, survival school had engrained in my head that you never,never, never refuse food. On that day, I ate that piece of meat.It didn’t make me sick and probably did me a lot of good.After all, it was the first piece of protein I’d seen in four months.A day or two later, I found an English-speaking interrogatorand asked him what the meat was. Without hesitation he toldme it was rat. On those exceedingly rare occasions we did getmeat, it was rat, cat, dog, water buffalo, horse meat, monkey orfishhead. Horsemeat by far was the best, fishhead was by farthe worst, even worse than rat. Fishhead was terrible.

Probably one of the most important issuesthere was communication. We were not allowed to communi-cate with anyone. If a guard came to our door, put his ear to it,listened, and heard any noise inside, the prisoners in thatroom were severely beaten. I got caught once and as a result,I will carry scar tissue on my brain for the rest of my life. Thepurpose of denying communication was to divide and con-quer us. However, we wouldn’t let them do that.

As I mentioned, our main food was soup and bread, but onrare occasion we got rice. The rice had a lot of rock, gravel,and pieces of F-4s in it, along with other things. We had to becareful so we wouldn’t break out our good teeth while eatingthe rice. In July 1967, I received my first bowl of rice and as Iwas meandering through it trying to avoid all the trash andgarbage, I came upon something in my mouth that I could

Lt Fowler is transported to the Hanoi Hilton.

�Home� for almost six years. The Hanoi Hilton.All photos courtesy of Colonel Henry Fowler


chew but it wouldn’t break up — it just kind of sat back thereand went squish, squish, squish. I reached in my mouth andpulled out a piece of paper on which was written in Englishand in pencil the following words; “God Bless America. Keepfaith Yank. Learn this code.” Signed 007.

The code is really very simple and has been previouslyexplained in publications such as Reader’s Digest. We di-vided the alphabet into five equal rows and five equal col-umns with numbers down the side and across the top. Theletter K was excluded. I don’t know why K was left out. How-ever, the table had 25 spots and the alphabet is 26 letters so wehad to leave something out. We sent messages letter by letter. You isolate a square, inother words each letter takes two sets of taps. The first setalways goes down, the second goes across. For example, if Iwere to send “A” as in “Albert,” that would be one and one.“C” is one down and three across. “H” is two down and threeacross. If we were locked in solitary, the tap code did not helpmuch because there was usually no one on either side, al-though a vein of cement on the ground did a marvelous job ofcarrying sound. Although we could brush thecode using a broom, or flash the code withhand signals, those methods were also usu-ally not available in solitary. If we beat on some-thing, we would have been beaten on. So theproblem here was: what sound could be madethat would not be too foreign to this environ-ment. Since most of us were sick most of thetime, “The Cough and Spit Code” (as I calledit) was developed. If we wanted to get out theletter “A,” that’s one cough down and one across. Onceagain though when you get down to the later letters, it wouldhave become a tad suspicious had we coughed twenty orthirty times. So we modified this. We kept the number one asone cough, we kept the number two as two coughs. Wechanged the number three into a hack. “N” as in “November”now becomes two hacks, rather than six coughs. Number fourwas a spit. So “T” was two spits, rather than eight coughs.Five was a sneeze. We used the tap code for recreation, as well as transferringimportant messages. Each day, we were each given a piece oftoilet paper about nine inches by nine inches. At best, itresembled sandpaper. We would save a portion, sometimes at

the highest sacrifice, for academic and enjoyable purposes.Our mosquito net was made up of little squares and could befolded the size of a chess or checkerboard, so we would taketoilet paper and make figures. My roommate and I playedchess and checkers. With the tap code, we had building-widechess matches. With the tap code and hand code, we hadcamp-wide chess matches. For example, tap on the wall “movequeens, pawn two.”

My second roommate had a masters de-gree in German, so I learned my German in the school of Hanoi.We learned that white wash scraped off the wall and watermade excellent ink. Brick dust off the floor and water makegood ink. Iodine and rice make excellent ink. Pencils wereeasy to steal. We kept dictionaries in German. Everything Ilearned in German, I learned from him. Later I spent three yearsin Germany and was able to do everything off base in, I won’tsay fluent, but good enough German to get by. The tap codes were used in even more important ways.They always wanted something from us. At the end of 1967,they took each and every one of us to interrogation roomsand ordered us to write a war crimes confession. We had towrite a confession admitting criminal acts and stating our coun-try was a war criminal. The truth of the matter was not rel-evant, they simply wanted the piece of paper with our signa-ture. I think I lost ten of my friends during that time — tenwere murdered. Article V of the Code of Conduct today sayswords to effect that — I’m required to give my name, rank,service number, date of birth and will resist answering furtherquestions to the best of my ability. When I went in, it didn’tsay that. It said I am bound to give only my name, rank,service number and date of birth — the big four and nothingmore. That was taken right out of the Geneva Prisoner of WarConvention. However, it is my considered opinion, and I speak

only for myself, that if you stuck to the old code,you’re going to end up one of three ways: dead,maimed for life, or driven insane, which long pe-riods of excruciating pain will do. In fact, ourguidance there was: When you go to interroga-tion and you’re asked or told to do somethingyou can’t do, start with a primary line of defense:name, rank, service number, date of birth. Youstayed with that as long as you could until youthink you’re about to lose your mental skills due

to long periods of excruciating pain.

Most of us feigned illness or forgetfulness.One interrogator told me, “You’re just a first lieutenant - you’renot worth much.” I said “Roger that.” Every time I went tointerrogation I said, “Hey, I’m a first lieutenant. I don’t knowanything.” One fellow, toward the end, went to interrogationsand, after suffering far more than I ever could have, and think-ing his mental skills were about to go, said “Okay, I will writefor you.” He sat down with pencil and paper and wrote aclassic piece, starting out with some beautiful, communist pro-paganda. Basically his confession said as follows: “I have

The Tap Code.


been accused of committing heinous crimes against the Viet-namese people by bombing their cities, towns and villagesand killing their old people, women and children. But on thatparticular day, I could not have done that of which I am ac-cused because on that particular day I was shot down beforeI dropped my bombs. But, I know who the scoundrels werewho killed those people and did that damage, they were mytwo wingmen — Paul Bunyon and Clark Kent.”

Take Cover!

In March, 1973, I was assigned as a young assistant Staff Judge Advocate to Zweibruecken AFB, Germany. Theday I arrived, the base was preparing for a NATO Tactical Evaluation. Everyone was running around in combatfatigues pretending we were at war. Because I was the claims officer, I was assigned to be the legal adviser to the

On Scene Commander for all disaster exercises. Three weeks later, we had another exercise. I responded to a “brokenarrow” on base. It was April, and we had had a fair amount of rain and there was water in the drains along the runways.The scenario progressed to the point where we simulated the aircraft exploding or the “bomb” (experiencing a nonnuclear explosion.) Red smoke was usually used to indicate non nuclear explosions. The base commander saw redsmoke starting to rise and he yelled “Take cover!” Approximately twenty individuals all took cover behind cars, andsome jumped into the ditches (with water in it). The base commander, who obviously was into the exercise, dove intothe runoff drain, causing a rather large splash. I stood there, with my claims NCO looking at him all covered with mud.The NCO (a wise T/Sgt) quickly excused himself saying he needed to get something he had forgotten. The com-mander turned around, propped himself up on his elbows, looked at me, and said, “ Judge, when you see red smoke,take cover.” I knew exactly what he meant. I did the closest thing to a swan dive that I could starting from the ground.

(By James C. Fetterman, Colonel, USAFR, Ret.)

Repatriation at last! Lt Fowler comes home.

You know who these characters were, but the Vietnamesedidn’t. However, they were always very suspicious of us, asthey had a right to be (we tried awful hard, we really did). So,they lifted those names off that paper, put them on a blankpiece of paper so all you saw were “Paul Bunyon and ClarkKent” and then brought most of us in during the followingweeks and asked us who these people are. If any one of ushad said, “Yes, he’s mythological character and he’s a comicstrip character” it would not have been good for the youngman that wrote that. But it never came to that because, by means of that code, Itapped to those on either side of him what he had done andthe rest of us stayed up all night, clandestinely getting theinformation throughout the whole prison. During the follow-ing weeks, no one knew who Paul Bunyon and Clark Kentwere. At the end of this process, another prisoner looked atthe names and armed with the information said; “I can hon-estly tell you that I’ve never had the pleasure of meeting, orfor that fact knowing, this person Paul Bunyon. But if I re-member when I was home in the free world, (we always gotthat in) I used to see this guy Clark Kent’s name in the news-paper almost every day. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, this guyClark Kent used to fly a lot.” The Vietnamese took that con-fession as written to one of their propaganda extravaganceswhere they read it intact to the entire tribunal.

Editor�s Conclusion. Colonel Fowler was repatri-ated on 18 February 1973. He continued to serve theAir Force as a member of the Air Force Judge Advo-

cate General’s Department, retiring in August 1991.


I was stationed at the US SouthernCommand, Quarry Heights,Panama, as the Deputy Staff Judge

Advocate during Operation JUSTCAUSE in December 1989. After mili-tary operations were concluded, Iworked with DOJ representatives as-signed to collect supporting evidencefor Federal charges pending in Miamiagainst Panamanian dictator, GeneralManuel Noriega. The examination ofNoriega’s holdings took me, DOJ per-sonnel, and Panamanian National Ar-chives representatives to one ofNoriega’s Panama City homes. Later,an exhaustive inventory of the con-tents of this house was taken in prepa-ration for transfer to the new Panama-nian government. During this time,we were told that CBS’s Mike Wallaceof “60 Minutes” fame, arrived at thefront gate with a TV crew who pro-fessed to have a pass from the CINChimself to enter. Being a careful manand perhaps one not overly awed bythe TV program’s reputation for accu-racy, the US troop commander keptMr. Wallace and crew waiting whilehe checked with the CINC’s office.Sure enough, we were later told thatMr. Wallace had no pass and wentaway, denied a view of one of the more

interesting places I saw during Opera-tion JUST CAUSE.

Not surprisingly, Manuel Noriega’shome contained many valuable items.Our troops captured it so fast that eventhe steaks in the refrigerator were mari-nating in preparation for the meal thatnever was. A brand new BMW with 15miles on its odometer was still sitting inthe front yard with a Christmas note onit indicating it had been intended as agift for one of the Noriega daughters.The place where the photo was takenwas General Noriega’s study. It wasobvious to even the casual observerthat General Noriega enjoyed collect-ing books and magazines of all types.There were volumes of books on theworld’s religions, reams of pornographicmagazines, and what appeared to be acomplete set of The National Geo-graphic. Upstairs in the entrance tothe master bedroom was a table ladenwith 50 brand new Rolex watches, eachin a little box with a card made out tomilitary members of General Noriega’sstaff. In the basement was an amazingsight to behold. Wall to wall, the dimlylit room was crammed with priceless,pre-Colombian artifacts, many of whichstill had museum labels on them, sug-gesting they had probably been stolen

What do LOACTraining and

from Panamanian museums. The rep-resentatives from the National Ar-chives were rendered speechless.Back upstairs under the Christmas treewere presents still wrapped, and in aroom bigger than the servants’ quar-ters were hundreds of bottles of thefinest wines and hard spirits. Draw-ers of costly silverware were in placein the dining room, and in one of thesitting rooms two huge, solid silverIbis stood majestically staring outover a most eclectic looking collec-tion of furniture that included every-thing from rosewood pieces to Per-sian carpets. In the courtyard was alittle Voodoo altar. Appropriatelyenough, a well fed rat scurried off thedais as I approached it.

What impressed me the most aboutthe scenes I describe is that everypiece of furniture, every piece of jew-elry, every bit of cash, even the shinynew BMW lay untouched. I realizedthen that our LOAC training was mostdefinitely intact and a program to beproud of. That day, I also realized theJAG Department has given me un-dreamed opportunities, opportunitiesnot even Mike Wallace has the privi-lege of experiencing!

Noriega’s DeskHave in Common?

Colonel Thomas Tudor

Photo courtesy of Colonel Thomas Tudor and Mr. Darrell Phillips


Sword in the SandOperations DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM 1

MAJOR LEONARD L. BROSEKER


199O

But what good came of it at last?”Quoth little Peterkin.

“Why that I cannot tell,” said he,“But ‘twas a famous victory.”

~ The Battle of Blenheim by Robert Southey, 1774 – 1843

On 2 August 1990, Iraqinvaded and occupied Kuwait after fail-ing to gain satisfaction from Kuwait andother oil-producing countries about eco-nomic issues it wished to have addressedin its favor.2 The United Nations (UN)Security Council passed Resolution 660 condemningthe invasion and demanding Iraq’s immediate withdrawalfrom Kuwait, and Resolution 661, which imposed eco-nomic sanctions on Iraq.3 The first American forces

arrived in the area of responsibility (AOR) on 8 August 1990in the form of elements from the 82nd Airborne Division andFB-111s in Saudi Arabia, and B-52s at Diego Garcia.4 By No-vember 1990, approximately 225,000 service members had ar-rived in the AOR with more scheduled to deploy to providefor “an adequate offensive military operation.”5 During thecourse of the crisis, the Air Force deployed almost half of itsCONUS-based combat strength to the AOR and airlifted over480,000 people and 513,000 tons of cargo to the theater.6

America’s total manpower contribution to the effort wouldeventually total approximately 550,000 service personnel.7

It was against this backdrop that Air Force judge advo-cates and paralegals deployed to the Middle East.8 The AirForce sent forty-nine judge advocates (JAGs) and forty-sixparalegals including three Area Defense Counsel and one AreaDefense Administrator.9 The legal issues JAGs and parale-gals faced in the AOR ran the gamut from wills and powers ofattorney to the real-time application of law of armed conflict(LOAC) principles, rules of engagement (ROE), and targetingissues. In short, deployed Air Force JAGs found themselvesfunctioning in an unusual environment and addressing is-sues not seen in decades.10

Preparing For WarThe Central Command Air Forces legal office (CENTAF/

JA) realized the need to provide guidance to the field in viewof the increasing regional tension.11 Colonel Dennis E.Kansala, CENTAF Staff Judge Advocate, emphasized the needto communicate and work through issues as a team, realizingthat “[t]here will be many things that cannot be fixed or that

Major Broseker (B.A., California State University, Sacra-mento; J.D., McGeorge School of Law; L.L.M., George Wash-ington University) is a civil law instructor at the Air ForceJudge Advocate General School. He is a member of theCalifornia State Bar.


will take time. Meanwhile the job needs to get done — useyour best judgment and continue to work hard.”12 Since hos-tilities were on the horizon, LOAC principles and the ROEassumed greater significance and became an important prior-ity. In this respect, Colonel Kansala observed: “It would betragic to go through this tremendous operational effort andhave it tarnished through ignorance or ill-conceived advice.”13

CENTAF/JA’s initial guidance to the field addressed thoseareas of Air Force practice typically seen at CONUS bases,e.g., wills, claims, military justice, legal assistance, etc.14 Italso contained guidance on topics normally addressed at baselegal offices in overseas locations, e.g., foreign criminal juris-diction, foreign claims, international agreements, etc.15 Ad-dressing issues outside of the typical experience of a legaloffice and in anticipation of hostilities, CENTAF/JA providedguidance on LOAC, specifically emphasizing the reporting ofviolations, war trophies, enemy prisoners of war (EPW), inter-acting with the International Committee of the Red Cross(ICRC), and the ROE.16

The bulk of personnel deployed to Saudi Arabia. Judgeadvocates and paralegals eventually deployed to twenty-twolocations in the Middle East and Indian Ocean. Judge advo-cates and paralegals deployed to the following countries: SaudiArabia, twenty-three judge advocates and twenty-four para-legals at nine locations; Oman, three judge advocates andthree paralegals at three locations; United Arab Emirates, eightjudge advocates and seven paralegals at six locations; andone judge advocate and one paralegal in Bahrain, Qatar, Egyptand Diego Garcia.17

CENTAF/JA educated judge advocates and paralegals onSaudi customs, culture and law so they could make intelligentdecisions when dealing with the Saudis.18 Because SaudiArabia is a conservative Moslem society, there was concernabout Saudi sensitivities to American conduct. The westernpresence in the Kingdom raised the possibility of a clash ofcultures adversely affecting successful execution of the mis-sion. CENTAF sent memoranda to its field commanders em-phasizing the need for American servicemembers not to of-fend Saudi religious sensitivities.19

The concern about host nation sensitivities led General H.Norman Schwarzkopf, Commander-in-Chief, Central Command(CENTCOM), to issue General Order #1 on 30 August 1990.The General Order prohibited, among other things, entranceinto mosques, consumption or possession of alcoholic bever-ages, introduction and possession of pornography, introduc-tion and possession of “sexually explicit” material, gambling,and removing or defacing archeological artifacts.20 “Sexuallyexplicit” material was defined broadly enough to include“muscle” magazines, swimsuit editions of magazines, and cata-logs displaying lingerie and underwear. The General Orderalso required servicemembers to “become familiar with andrespect the laws, regulations, and customs of their host na-tion.”21

The General Order forced commanders and judge advocatesto view seriously conduct that otherwise would not a raise aconcern “back home,” e.g., drinking a beer, while at the sametime minimizing conduct that could antagonize host-nationsensitivities.22 As a result, a public debate followed in theAmerican media concerning the military necessity of theseprohibitions. However, General Order # 1 worked so well thatsimilar General Orders were and continue to be used in subse-quent contingency operations.23

Military Justice in the AORAnother important issue for commanders and judge advo-

cates in the AOR was identifying who could take disciplinaryaction for Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) violations.Until the establishment of provisional units and the designa-tion of Special Courts-Martial Convening Authorities in De-cember 1990, judge advocates had a difficult time determiningwho was the “commander” for the particular servicememberinvolved in alleged misconduct.24 The situation presented a“Tower of Babel-like” challenge for judge advocates, sincesome personnel deployed as individuals and others deployedwith their home base commander.25

For example, one AOR location had approximately 2,850personnel representing over 60 bases throughout the AirForce.26 At another location, over 4,000 personnel came fromover 100 bases and 9 MAJCOMs.27 In such cases, the com-mander having the most people from his unit at that locationwould “assume command” without having a base-wide unitto command.28 Until the AOR command structure was settled,CENTAF/CC was the first commander in the chain of com-mand with the requisite UCMJ authority to act.29 OperationDesert Shield was an interesting time, from the military justiceperspective, for deployed judge advocates.

In October 1990, the Trial Judiciary established a two-phaseplan to support courts-martial in theater.30 Phase one envi-sioned sending a military judge, circuit trial counsel, and courtreporter on a case-by-case basis. Defense counsel would beappointed from defense resources already in the AOR. Theplan also addressed transportation requirements, court ad-ministration, docketing, legal support issues, funding andequipment requirements. Phase two envisioned the estab-lishment of a separate circuit in the event it was justified bythe workload. Phase two required the assignment of person-

Combat JAG. (left to right) SMSgt C. Langdon andCapt Irwin in front of their new office.

Photo courtesy of SMSgt Carole Langdon


nel to the newly established circuit to manage the workload.The first phase was implemented for two of the three AORcourts-martial.31 The second phase was never implementedbecause hostilities ended before the court-martial workloadincreased to the point requiring the establishment of an addi-tional circuit.

Despite the logistical difficulties in supporting AOR courts-martial, Air Force legal offices tried three courts-martial in Janu-ary 1991 before the start of the air offensive.32 Two of thecourts-martial required a military judge and a paralegal to travelto the AOR.33 Colonel James A. Young, III (then LieutenantColonel) and Master Sergeant Carrie Carson (then-TSgt Car-rie Holcomb) were assigned and traveled from Maxwell AFB,Alabama to try the courts-martial.34 The third was a summarycourt-martial over which a deployed judge advocate presided.35

Colonel Young reported to HQ USAF/JAJT: “Supportingbases in Saudi Arabia from the CONUS will not be easy, espe-cially when working on a tight time schedule.”36 The immi-nent hostilities made travel within the AOR difficult. Space onaircraft was valuable and subject to availability on short no-tice, requiring the military judge and accompanying paralegalto be flexible.37 Real world events demanded the courts-mar-tial be tried as expeditiously as possible — while ensuringeach accused’s rights were honored. Traveling to the AORand “hitting the ground running” highlighted another factor:fatigue. Both Colonel Young and Master Sergeant Carsonreported finding it initially difficult to concentrate due to theeffects of jet lag.38

The Saudis were very sensitive about certain types of crimes,e.g. illicit drugs. Since both courts-martial requiring the pres-ence of a military judge were tried in Saudi Arabia, awarenessof host country sensitivities affected the public manner of

trial. The general court-martial involved the theft and posses-sion of drugs and was conducted discreetly in an office barelysufficient to hold all the necessary parties and three specta-tors.39 In contrast, the special court-martial on larceny chargeswas conducted in a lavishly decorated conference room usedby the Saudis for briefings.40 The summary court-martial didnot require a military judge and so was necessarily more dis-creet.41

In addition to courts-martial, JAGs regularly processed Ar-ticle 15s. By 4 January 1991, 94 Article 15s had been pro-cessed with another 57 pending.42 However, with only threeArea Defense Counsel in the AOR, uncertain transportationand unreliable telephone service, processing Article 15s didnot go as quickly as legal offices had expected.

The Law of Armed ConflictDuring the Vietnam War, there was a general mistrust among

commanders concerning any restrictions placed upon theirfreedom of action, specifically the application of LOAC andthe ROE.43 Commanders believed that artificial restrictionshad been placed in their way.44 “Relations were often markedby suspicion and a belief—on the commander’s part—thatlawyers, together with politicians, were an obstacle to win-ning the war.”45 In reality, JAGs played almost no part in theoperational environment of Vietnam.46

America’s experience with LOAC in Vietnam — spurred inlarge part by My Lai — prompted the Department of Defense(DoD) to institute LOAC training for the troops to heightenawareness of international legal requirements which, in turn,helped develop an appreciation by commanders for applica-tion of LOAC principles in operational planning.47

Sand on the porch �at home.� Photo courtesy of SMSgt Carole Langdon


The mistrust of the Vietnam era was replaced by a growingrespect and understanding of JAGs and the field of law nowknown as “operational law.”48 On the eve of Operation DESERTSTORM, American leaders emphasized that the upcoming aircampaign “would avoid civilian objects and religious cen-ters.”49 American attitudes about the role of LOAC and theROE now emphasized the need to integrate these principlesinto operational planning.50 For example, judge advocateswere closely involved in the targeting process during Opera-tion DESERT STORM.51 Judge advocates sat in targetingmeetings where lists of targets to be attacked by Coalitionforces were developed.52 Included with the lists were legalannexes highlighting potential LOAC violations for consider-ation by the chain of command when selecting targets.53

It was essential the “shooters” understood and appliedthese principles. CENTAF/JA emphasized the need “to en-sure that your commander, war planners, aircrews, and se-curity police not only understand the ROE and basicLOAC principles, but also what you can do for them andhow you can be contacted if a real-time contingencyoccurs.”54 Base Staff Judge Advocates (SJAs) weretasked with training personnel at their locations onLOAC principles. Training for aircrews and secu-rity police — who had a greater likelihood of en-gaging hostile forces — was emphasized.55 SJAsprovided the necessary manning and resourcesin support of this priority objective.56 In viewof the fact that most locations only had onejudge advocate assigned, this requirementbecame a high priority item for each judgeadvocate to accomplish.57

Judge advocate advice “in the field” onLOAC and ROE went beyond classroom-style training. CENTAF/JA urged that a re-liable means of communication between thecommander/operational forces and judge ad-vocates be maintained to facilitate coordina-tion between them.58 Operators were able tocontact their JAG in the event of a real-timeemergency.

These initiatives made operation DESERTSTORM “the most legalistic war we’ve everfought.”59 The war greatly enhanced and al-tered the role that judge advocates play duringoperational planning.60 As a result, any mistrustcommanders had concerning their lawyers fadedaway as they came to appreciate what judge ad-vocates had to offer them as advisors. Judgeadvocates were no longer viewed as obstacles.61

The JAG contribution to the war effort was high-lighted in DoD’s final report to Congress.62

The Stateside Experience63

While deployed judge advocates and paralegalscan point to unique experiences during their time inthe AOR, stateside legal offices can likewise point tounique experiences. Almost overnight, base legal of-

fices experienced a massive increase in legal assistance insupport of the deployment, e.g., wills, powers of attorney andnotary service. Base legal offices easily saw a doubling or atripling of their workload during the early stages of the de-ployment. Despite Air Force members having the opportu-nity to obtain these important documents under calmer cir-cumstances, the crisis served as a wake up call that they hadto obtain these documents for their families. The increasedworkload was due in significant part to this last minute prepa-ration by Air Force members before they deployed.64

Base legal offices responded to the increased workload byproviding briefings about wills and powers of attorney to large

groups of Air Force personnel in order to make efficientuse of the limited time they had to assist their cli-

ents.65 Air Force family members were also briefedto ensure they had the requisite information.66

In some instances, Area Defense Counsel as-sisted the base legal office with wills and pow-

ers of attorney, closing their offices for aportion of the day.67 In at least one in-

stance, a major command legal office like-wise shut down to assist the base legaloffice.68 Compounding their difficulties,base legal offices were also losing per-sonnel to deployment.69 The Judge Ad-vocate General Department made use ofreservists to backfill positions vacatedby deployed, active duty judge advo-cates.70

ConclusionThis article only hints at the multi-

tude of ways JAGs fulfilled their vital rolein the Air Force mission accomplishment.Much more could be said about legal as-sistance, claims, relationships with vari-ous host countries, contracting within theAOR, and so forth. Even after the expul-sion of Iraq from Kuwait, JAGs did not“stand down” in their legal work. Opera-tions DESERT SHIELD and STORM re-vealed deficiencies in the way the legal mat-ters were normally addressed.71 These de-ficiencies were identified and corrective ac-tion taken. The best example concerned theSoldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act(SSCRA). Congress quickly revised theSSCRA when service members experienceddifficulties exercising their rights under theAct.72

Operation DESERT STORM has been calledthe “lawyer’s war.”73 Judge advocates weredeployed throughout the AOR.74 Their con-

tributions were acknowledged by then-Chairman,Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell whenhe observed that: “Decisions were impacted bylegal considerations at every level, [the law of

Photo courtesy of SMSgt Carole Langdon

SMSgt Carole Langdon.


war] proved invaluable in the decision-making process.”75 Incontrast to the American experience in Vietnam, commanderswillingly sought out legal advice concerning the law of armedconflict (LOAC).76

Operations DESERT SHIELD/STORM forced reconsidera-tion of the role of judge advocates and paralegals in support-ing contingency operations. Since Operations DESERTSHIELD/STORM, judge advocates and paralegals have de-ployed in support of a growing number of contingencies aroundthe world at a pace not previously experienced. As a result,that body of law we call “operations law” has become moreimportant to judge advocates and their commanders. Due toits success during Operations DESERT SHIELD/STORM,CENTCOM’s General Order #1 has served as the model forsubsequent US deployments for other contingencies.

While the Air Force refines the Expeditionary AerospaceForce concept in response to the post-Cold War world, judgeadvocates and paralegals will continue to deploy in supportof contingencies into the 21st Century.

1 Americans refer to the war as the “Gulf War,” however in ourenthusiasm to discuss “our” war, we forget that the Iraqis and Iraniansfought for eight years from 1980 to 1988. See R. Ernest Dupuy andTrevor N. Dupuy, The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History:From 3500 B.C. to the Present, 4th Ed (1993), pp. 1469, 1477[hereinafter Dupuy].2 Dupuy, supra note 1, at pp. 1477-78. Five factors motivated Iraq:(1) Iraq could not repay the $80 billion borrowed from Kuwait andthe Kuwaitis were not willing to forgive the loans; (2) Kuwaitpresented a rich, tempting target; (3) Iraq alleged Kuwaiti oil drillingin a disputed oil field; (4) Kuwaiti overproduction of oil which playeda major role in depressing oil prices (thus having an indirect effect onIraq’s ability to repay its loans); and (5) the Kuwaiti Emir declined toengage in face-to-face talks with Saddam Hussein which was viewedas a personal insult. See Bruce W. Watson, et al., Military Lessons ofthe Gulf War, Presidio Press (1991), p. 17 [hereinafter Watson].3 Dupuy, supra note 1, at p. 1478.4 Id.5 Id.6 Watson, Appendix E, supra note 2, at p. 61. In addition, half of theStrategic Air Command’s 600 tanker fleet supported the deployments.Id. at p.79, note 3. During this time frame, over 55,000 Air Forcepersonnel deployed to the AOR. See Airpower in Operation DesertStorm, USAF Factsheet 91-03, Special Edition. The Air ForceReserve recalled 34,634 reservists to active duty with approximately15,000 deploying. See, Stephen M. Duncan, War Confirms TotalForce Policy, The Officer, July 1991. In addition, 12,404 AirGuardsmen entered federal service during the crisis with 5,240deploying to the AOR. See Air National Guard Heritage (visitedJanuary 27, 1999) <http://www.ang.af.mil/ngb/paih/heritage.htm>.7 Watson, Appendix E, supra note 2, at p. 241. A significantpercentage of the force deployed to the Gulf came from the ReserveComponents. As of 10 March 1991, 227,657 reservists had beenrecalled to active duty with approximately 189,000 reservistsdeployed to the AOR. Id.8 Each of the services deployed judge advocates to the AOR. SeeSteven Keeva, Lawyers in the War Room, ABA Journal, December1991, p. 52 [hereinafter Keeva].9 The Army, Navy and Marine Corps sent 228, 31, and 46 judgeadvocates, respectively, for a total of 354 judge advocates in theater(including Air Force attorneys). In addition to the Middle East, AirForce judge advocates and paralegals were sent to Europe and otherlocations in support of Operations Desert Shield/Storm. SeeOperation Desert Shield/Desert Storm After Action Workshop, 10 –

14 June 1991, Maxwell AFB, Alabama [hereinafter After ActionWorkshop]; See also HQ TAC/JA document, Operation Desert ShieldJAG Personnel Listing/Location, 15 January 1991.10 For an excellent overview of a judge advocate’s responsibilitiesduring contingency operations, see Lawyers’ Role in Combat, FederalBar News and Journal, Vol. 30, No. 3, (March 1983).11 The Judge Advocate General’s Department also realized that itwas necessary to provide guidance to the field. The Departmentpublished five Issues Committee Reports on 17 August 1990, 24August 1990, 30 August 1990, 13 September 1990, and 19 November1990 setting out policy guidance for numerous issues that couldarise in the AOR. A host of issues were addressed within the reportsto include claims, legal assistance, contracting, customs, UCMJactions and military justice issues, veteran’s re-employment rights,and, of course, LOAC. The Issues Committee Reports provided thestarting point to begin analysis and discussion about a specific issuefor deployed legal personnel. The reports were timely and veryhelpful.12 CENTAF/JA memorandum, Operation Desert Shield – PolicyLetter, 31 August 1990.13 Id.14 CENTAF/JA, CENTAF Staff Judge Advocate Guidance to FieldJudge Advocates: Operation Desert Shield, 29 August 1990[hereinafter CENTAF Guidance].15 Id.16 Id.17 See HQ TAC/JA document, Operation Desert Shield JAG PersonnelListing/Location, 15 January 1991.18 CENTAF Guidance, Attachment 1, supra note 14 (special emphasisplaced upon what to do in the event a traffic accident occurredinvolving an American). A country study of the Kingdom of SaudiArabia was also provided to the field describing the country’s political,social and legal systems.19 CENTAF/CC Memorandum, Awareness of Host-NationSensitivities, 15 August 1990 and CENTAF/CD Memorandum, SaudiSensitivity to American’s [sic] Conduct, 4 September 1990.20 General Order #1, General Order for All U.S. PersonnelParticipating in or Supporting Operation Desert Shield, 30 August1990, para. 3 [hereinafter General Order #1]. Paragraph 3 violationswere punishable pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice(UCMJ). Id., para. 4.21 General Order #1, para. 5, supra note 20. The paragraph imposeda duty requirement upon servicemembers to respect host-nation law.“Flagrant” paragraph 5 violations were punishable pursuant to theUCMJ. Id.

�Blitzkrieg!� A paralegal reads the Gulf News.


22 Which is not to say violations did not occur, just that they werekept to a minimum. As of June 1991, there were 2 potential GCMsand 3 potential SPCMs being processed in CONUS for mattersarising in the AOR, but not completed by the conclusion of hostilitiesin March 1991. Statistical comparisons between the AOR actionsand the “rest of the USAF” revealed lower rates per 1,000 in theAOR for both courts and Article 15s when compared to the rest ofthe Air Force. The rate in the AOR for courts-martial was .005 perthousand; outside the AOR it was 1.28 per thousand. The Article 15rate in the AOR was 6.1 per thousand compared to 13.52 per thousandoutside the AOR. An added bonus accruing to the Air Force was adrop in overall military justice activity outside of the AOR whencompared to the same period the previous year. See supra note 9,After Action Workshop. The statistics are revealing and indicate thevalue of both the General Order and the heightened operational tempofor Air Force members from August 1990 to March 1991.23 Also a strong consideration, with respect to the prohibitionsconcerning alcoholic beverages and gambling, was that good orderand discipline be maintained among deployed forces.24 Provisional units were established during the September-October1990 time frame. SPMCAs were designated on 26 December 1990by CENTAF. After Action Workshop, supra note 9.25 The inherent authority of the senior officer to take or exercisecommand was deemed to have limited value since the “unit” to becommanded was, at best, not capable of being defined without dispute.See supra note 9, After Action Workshop.26 Id.27 Author’s notes reflecting personnel data outlined at a February1991 staff meeting at the AOR location.28 After Action Workshop, supra note 9, and Author’s notes.

29 After Action Workshop, supra note 9.30 HQ USAF/JAJT Staff Summary Sheet, Trial Judiciary Plan forOperation “Desert Shield,” 3 October 1990 (with plan attached).The information that follows in the paragraph is contained in thisdocument unless otherwise noted.31 The summary court-martial conducted in theater did not requirethe presence of a military judge, circuit trial counsel, or a court reporter.Legal personnel at the deployed location handled administrativeprocessing of the matter.32 U.S. v. Braswell (GCM), U.S. v. Perry (SPCM), and U.S. v.McClain (SCM).33 U.S. v. Braswell and U.S. v. Perry. Braswell was tried on 11January 1991 and Perry was tried on 12-13 January 1991. See LtCol James A. Young, III, Trip Report, 17 January 1991 [hereinafterTrip Report].34 Trip Report, supra note 33, and comments provided by MSgtCarson (E-mail copy on file with AFJAGS). MSgt Carson wastasked with the responsibility of developing and safeguarding therecords of trial. Id.35 U.S. V. McClain. Major Jack Else was designated the summarycourt-martial officer and had been deployed to the AOR since August1990. The summary court-martial was conducted on 14 January1991.36 Trip Report, supra note 33.37 Trip Report, supra note 33. A problem that also could havearisen was the lack of research material or Military Justice Reporters,if a complicated motion or issue came up during the course of thesecourts-martial. Id.38 Trip Report, supra note 33, and comments provided by MSgtCarson. (E-mail copy on file with AFJAGS).39 Trip Report, supra note 33, and comments provided by MSgtCarson (E-mail copy on file with AFJAGS). The accused had waivedhis right to an Article 32 hearing and plead guilty at trial. Theproceedings went judge alone to the sentencing phase. Id.40 Trip Report, supra note 33, and comments provided by MSgtCarson (E-mail copy on file with AFJAGS). The accused pleadedguilty in this case. He elected to go with panel members for thesentencing phase. Id.41 The biggest problem was retrieving the judge advocate designatedas the summary court-martial from his deployed location. SSgtKenneth Madero, who had deployed with me in August 1990, and Ihad to get Major Else for our court-martial. Without complete faithin our land navigation skills across what is possibly the bleakestterrain on earth, we weren’t thrilled about traveling that far fromwhat had been our “home” for about four months. In addition tomaking sure we did not get lost in the middle of an unforgiving desert,we had to be careful not to venture into one of Islam’s holiest sites.We would have to skirt the “suburbs” of the city to get to MajorElse’s location. At some point near the city we saw big signs withwarnings displayed in seven languages that non-Moslems were notto go to the downtown area and were to turn back. The language wassufficient to convince us that we did not want to go downtown. Inany event, due to the notorious lack of detail in the map we had, wegot lost and were heading downtown; to a place no Christian man hadgone (at least since 622 AD). We stopped to get directions from twoSaudi National Guardsmen when the language on the signs got evenmore threatening. I half expected that at least one of the Guardsmenknew enough English to help us. Unfortunately, neither one did.After a lot of gesturing and pointing, SSgt Madero and I figured outwe had missed a turn about two miles back. We were able to try thecourt-martial, completing it on 14 January 1991, shortly before theair offensive began. The accused had previously turned down anArticle 15 and demanded a trial by court-martial. He subsequentlywaived objections to the summary court-martial, plead not guilty toone charge of indecent assault, and was acquitted. After the court-martial was completed, we were able to get Major Else back to hislocation without any difficulty before the air offensive began.42 See HQ CENTAF/JA Report to HQ USAF, Judge Advocate

Inside 35 TFWD/JA legal office.Photo courtesy of SMSgt Carole Langdon


Weekly Report, 4 January 1991. 54 of the pending matters involvedenlisted personnel with another 3 concerning officer misconduct. Id.Five officer Article 15s had been completed up to this time. Id.43 Keeva, supra note 8, at p.55.44 Id.45 Id. at p. 5646 See Vietnam articles in this edition of The Reporter.47 Keeva, supra note 8, at p. 55.48 Id.49 Adam Roberts, The Laws of War in the 1990-91 Gulf Conflict,International Security, Vol. 18, No. 3, Winter 1993/94, p. 150[hereinafter Roberts].50 Final Report to Congress, Conduct of the Persian Gulf War (April1992), Appendix O, p. 607 [hereinafter Final Report]; Also see,Roberts, supra note 50, at p. 135 and Keeva, supra note 8, at p. 59(lawyers absolutely indispensable to military operations); Also seegenerally Lt Col James G. Zumwalt, II, The “Law of War” – BringingCivility to the Battlefield, Marine Corps Gazette, February 1995,pp. 45 – 47.51 Keeva, supra note 8, at p. 54.52 Id. at p. 57.53 Id. at pp. 57-58.54 CENTAF/JA Memorandum, Operation Desert Shield – PolicyLetter, 31 August 1990.55 CENTAF Guidance, supra note 14.56 Id.57 See supra note 17.58 CENTAF Guidance, supra note 14.59 Keeva, supra note 8, at p. 52 (quoting Colonel Raymond Ruppert,Staff Judge Advocate for CENTCOM during the war).60 Id. at p. 59.61 Id.62 Final Report, supra note 51, at p. 607.63 See generally supra note 9, After Action Workshop unlessotherwise noted.64 Demand for wills, powers of attorney, notary service and the likeby Air Force members continued after their arrival in the AOR.Through 4 January 1991, the various legal offices in the AOR saw11,867 legal assistance clients. See HQ CENTAF/JA Report to HQUSAF, Judge Advocate Weekly Report, 4 January 1991. In short,base legal offices throughout the Air Force saw an incredible increasein their workloads. See supra note 9, After Action Workshop.65 The facts in this paragraph are from interviews with Major MichaelGuillory, USAFR, Adjunct Instructor, AFJAGS; Major Lisa L.

Turner, Instructor, Operations Law Division, AFJAGS; and MajorGuillermo R. Carranza, Instructor, Civil Law Division, AFJAGS(February 1999).66 Before the author deployed to the AOR in August 1990, heparticipated in such briefings for Air Force family members.67 Conversation with Major Mike Guillory, USAFR, AdjunctInstructor, AFJAGS.68 Id. (The Air Force major command that did so was the Air ForceSpecial Operations Command.).69 The loss of office personnel could come quite suddenly. Theauthor was on the mobility processing line assisting Air Force memberswith their legal questions when a telephone call came from the legaloffice notifying him to “get in the mobility line” for deployment tothe AOR shortly after the deployment began in August 1990. Whenthe author left, three of six attorneys originally assigned to the officeremained behind (the SJA had PCSed that summer and another retiredbefore the crisis began).70 See supra note 9, After Action Workshop. The author’s positionwas filled by a series of Reserve judge advocates who assumedresponsibility for his duties during his deployment.71 See generally supra note 9, After Action Workshop. Thesuggestions submitted in response to the Department’s request forproposals to improve the way it addressed various legal matterscovered a myriad of areas, to include mobilization and deploymentissues, MAJCOM support, mobility legal assistance, Guard andReserve issues, voting, computer and legal research support, militaryjustice issues, procurement issues, international and operations lawtopics, and base legal operations in wartime, both in CONUS and inthe AOR. Id.72 See PL 102-12 amending 50 U.S.C. App. Sections 501 – 593.73 Keeva, supra note 8, at p. 52.74 See supra notes 8 and 9.75 See supra note 51, Final Report, Appendix O, p. 605.76 Id. at p. 632; Also see generally, Lt Col John G. Humphries,Operations Law and the Rules of Engagement in Operations DesertShield and Desert Storm, Airpower Journal (Fall 1992) and Keeva,supra note 8, at p. 56.

F15s and F16s over burning oil fields.


I won’t presume to try and tell the story or describe the experiences for all judge advocates (JAGs) deployedduring Operation DESERT STORM. Each location had its

own personality and challenges for the deployed JAG. I willtry and describe my unique experience from the time I boardeda KC-135 on a cold Michigan morning for the 17-hour flight toJeddah, Saudi Arabia, until I returned to the sounds of LeeGreenwood singing “Proud to be an American!”

I was a volunteer to go to Desert Storm. It was a difficultdecision for my family and me as we were expecting our thirdchild sometime in early 1991. I was the Deputy Staff JudgeAdvocate (SJA) at Wurtsmith Air Force Base (AFB), an oldStrategic Air Command (SAC) base now closed, that had B-52bombers and KC-135 tankers. Our wing did not fully deploy inDesert Shield so we waited and watched as the situation in theGulf developed.

This was a defining assignment for me. I had been in mobil-ity positions at various SAC bases for three assignments.Mobility for me had been packing a bag, processing througha mobility line and maybe getting on a bus to sit and wait untilthe exercise was over. Desert Storm brought a whole newsense of urgency and importance to what mobility was allabout. Before, chemical warfare training was a hassle – now, itcould mean life or death.

I was notified of my selection to deploy the day beforeChristmas 1990. I, as opposed to many less fortunate JAGswho deployed, was able to spend Christmas with my family.Two days later, I kissed my wife and boarded a KC-135 for anon-stop flight to Jeddah.

Jeddah, a city of 1.2 million people on the Red Sea coast ofSaudi Arabia, was an interesting location. We operated out ofthe gigantic Jeddah International Airport known to most Mus-lims as the Gateway to Mecca because of the close proximityof Jeddah to that holy city. We were billeted in compoundsspread throughout the city and transported in buses to thebase every day. By all accounts, the living conditions werevery tolerable. Most personnel were billeted in air-conditionedrooms or hooches and some even had cable TV!

Press coverage of our operation was kept to a minimumbecause many of the B-52s flying out of Jeddah had beensitting nuclear alert before deploying to Jeddah. We had noCNN coverage and media attention was focused on B-52sstationed outside of Saudi Arabia. Having that type of air-craft so close to the holy city of Mecca could have given Iraq

Fighting the StormLIEUTENANT COLONEL RONALD M. REED

some political rhetoric to try and divide the coalition. Wedidn’t mind the lack of coverage in Jeddah. We realized thehigher you stick your head up, the bigger a target you be-come.

I was selected to deploy because the operations out ofJeddah, which had been primarily National Guard tanker op-erations, were about to change. Jeddah was to become thebase for B-52s deploying to Saudi Arabia at the start of DesertStorm. Prior to my arrival, one active duty Captain (now-Ma-jor Leonard Broseker) was the only JAG who had deployed toJeddah and remained since August of 1990. Prior to my ar-rival, a series of ANG JAGs deployed to be the SJA and ro-tated out at 30-day intervals. Because SAC wanted a “perma-nent” SJA at Jeddah, I deployed with one paralegal (now-TSgt Robert Taft) to augment the paralegal who had beenworking in the legal office since August (SSgt KennethMadero).

One of the most unusual aspects of the deployment wasthe command relationships that I faced as SJA. I workeddirectly for the 1701st Strategic Wing commander (an Air Na-tional Guard (ANG) Colonel from the Kansas Guard) who wasatop of a triangular command structure with two wings report-ing to him, each commanded by an active duty Colonel. OneColonel (the 1708th Bombardment Wing) was my Wing Com-mander from Wurtsmith AFB and the other (the 1709

th Air

Refueling Wing) was a KC-10 Wing Commander from SeymourJohnson AFB. Prior to my deployment, I had not met theANG Colonel for whom I worked. Nor had I met or workedwith most of the staff of the 1701st Strategic Wing. The lack ofan existing relationship with that organization added a chal-

Lieutenant Colonel Reed (B.S. University of Notre Dame;J.D., DePaul University; M.A.A.S., School for AdvancedAirpower Studies) is currently assigned as Assistant StaffJudge Advocate, United States Pacific Command. He is amember of the Illinois State Bar.

Maj Reed and TSgt Taft in the legal office at Jedda

Photo courtesy of Lieutenant C

olonel Ronald R

eed


lenge to an already demanding deployment. Trying to estab-lish one’s credibility and trustworthiness is difficult even whennot in a wartime environment – these things can only developthrough time.

Upon my arrival in December 1990, the base population was1,800. During DESERT STORM it increased to more than 4,100.The base population was comprised of personnel from 378different units from 105 different active duty, reserve and ANGbases. Very few personnel had ever worked or exercised witheach other before we were amalgamated at Jeddah. While themission was accomplished, the need for something like theExpeditionary Aerospace Force concept (units that will fighttogether train together) was evident.

At the peak of the war, we had more than 100 aircraft on theramp (86 tankers (KC-135 A/Es and KC-10s)) and 16 B-52s.The B-52s flying out of Jeddah flew more than 4,000 hoursduring 846 sorties and dropped one-third of the entire ton-nage delivered on Iraq during the war (25,718,000 pounds ofbombs). The tankers delivered more than 120,000,000 gallonsof fuel to more than 25,000 receivers! Some of the most im-pressive sights I’ve ever seen were fully loaded B-52s takingoff in cell to bomb their assigned targets and returning to basewhere they released their chutes to be loaded up and go again.

From a professional perspective, operating in a deployedenvironment was both challenging and rewarding. We oper-ated the legal office 24 hours a day during the entire DesertStorm operation (no small feat considering we only had a four-person team). During the reception phase, we developed com-prehensive handouts and briefings on Law of Armed Conflict,Prisoner of War Standards of Conduct, and Rules of Engage-ment. Our efforts, and the efforts of JAGs across the theater,helped to ensure collateral damage was minimized during theair campaign.

One of the skills they can’t teach you at the JAG School ishow to operate as a liaison between the local host nationauthorities and military personnel. During one instance, I hadto personally negotiate with the local Saudi prince to obtainthe release of an Army enlisted driver who was involved in afatal vehicle accident while driving his Humvee.

As was common throughout the theater, we briefed all AirForce personnel on host nation and religious sensitivities.These briefings were critical given the strict Islamic society inwhich we found ourselves. Our hard work was rewarded withno significant problems involving our 4,100 troops in a city of1.2 million.

If military justice was “job one” during Vietnam, you couldsay that “job one” for us was anything that would help ac-complish the mission by getting bombs on target and fuel inthe aircraft. Whether it was legal assistance, claims, or mili-tary justice, the legal office at Jeddah did everything it couldto support the mission.

To facilitate better legal assistance, I took the heretical stepof making house calls at the seven deployed housing com-pounds located around the city. Many of the security person-nel did not commute to the main base and the only way tomeet their needs was to go to them. We accomplished wills,powers of attorney (POAs), affidavits, and helped personnel

with their taxes. If you ever start to wonder whether grantinga General POA is really such a big deal, consider an ANG SSgtclient of mine. Her 20-year-old son cleaned out her checkingaccount, opened and charged up new charge accounts, ne-glected to pay her bills, sold her furniture, and defaulted onher apartment lease, all with a General POA. Needless to say,her ability to focus on the mission was severely impaired.

We processed several thousand dollars worth of personnel(P) claims (primarily due to lost clothing) and two ForeignClaims Act claims for more than $5,000 (one for a fuel truckwhich collapsed on itself when the enlisted fuels person for-got to open the venting valve).

Military justice was not a significant problem (only fourArticle 15s in the four months of my tenure). The lack ofalcohol combined with 16-18 hour workdays made everyonetoo sober and tired to get into trouble. We did conduct one ofthe three courts-martial tried in Saudi Arabia during DesertStorm. Ours was a Summary Court held in a smoking lounge atthe base with the SJA from the nearby base at Taif comingover to be the Summary Court Officer.

The one thing you can expect during a deployment is theunexpected. In February of 1991, I served as the legal advisorto an AFR 110-14 aircraft accident investigation conducted atJeddah. A KC-135 tanker encountered turbulence on its wayto a refueling mission and entered a 180-degree “Dutch Roll.”The pilot was able to recover the aircraft, but in doing so, theforce sheared the inboard engine from the left wing. The in-board engine then struck the outboard engine which alsosheared off. The pilot, an ANG pilot who had flown a similarlyconfigured aircraft in a simulator for the civilian airlines, wasable to bring the plane back to base and land with two engineson the right wing, blowing four tires. The damage was esti-mated at $2.5 to $3 million. The Vice Wing Commander fromGrissom AFB, IN, deployed to Jeddah to be the InvestigatingOfficer. Our office provided administrative support and tran-scription for the 18 witnesses interviewed as well as legal sup-port for the investigation. Ultimately, the pilot was clearedand he received a Distinguished Flying Cross for his coura-geous efforts in recovering the aircraft. An interesting finalnote in that saga was the fact that the single shear bolts whichaffix the engines to the wings (about the size of a roll of life-savers) were nearly cracked all the way through on both en-gines on the right wing. The KC-135 nearly had become aglider!

The war ended on 28 February 1991. Capt Broseker andSSgt Madero returned to Castle AFB in California. The localSaudi prince threw a huge party for the base on the 11th ofMarch, carpeting an entire parking lot with Persian rugs! Itwas nearing time for everyone to return. The Saudis wereanxious to get us out of Jeddah before the Haj (the annualMuslim pilgrimage to Mecca) started. SSgt Taft and I leftJeddah on Tuesday, 19 March 1991, to return to WurtsmithAFB. Bob returned to his family and I returned to my family tomeet and hold a daughter that was born on the 16th of Febru-ary. Those few months in 1990 and 1991 are forever etched inmy mind. As Lee Greenwood said, “God Bless the U.S.A.”


I remember feeling a mixture of emotions upon beingselected (by name) to be the paralegal to deploy to Saudi

as a court reporter for the first three courts-martial to beheld in-country. I was flattered and proud that my commandthought so highly of me, but I was also a little scared as thedeadline set by the United Nations for the withdrawal of Iraqiforces from Kuwait was rapidly approaching, and I’d neverbeen in a combat environment. I was concerned about mypersonal safety and, more importantly, the well-being of myson because I was a single parent at the time. Despite howhard the military tries to ready us for contingencies and war-time, there is no preparation for the anxiety you feel when itbecomes a reality. All sorts of conflicting emotions are present:fear, duty, selfishness, and selflessness to name a few.

My purpose in going was twofold. I was to secure therecord and transport the court reporter equipment the Depart-ment had purchased specifically for deployment. In early Janu-ary 1990, I met up with the military judge, Lieutenant ColonelJames A. Young, at Langley AFB where we were briefed onour “mission,” and I became familiar with the equipment. Af-ter a couple of days, the Lieutenant Colonel and I flew onmilitary aircraft from Langley to Zaragosa AB, Spain. Whenwe arrived in Spain, I was awestruck by the number of peoplestaged there. So many people...so many lives. I wondered ifthey harbored the same fears that I did.

From Spain we went to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. After furtherbriefings on mission expectations, we were dispatched toTabuk, the site of our first court. This was a general court-martial of an NCO charged with theft of the flight surgeon’strauma medication and possessing/using LSD. Because ofthe strict Islamic laws concerning drugs, the case was handledexpeditiously and discretely. The trial took place in the officeof the Deputy Commander for Maintenance, which was largeenough only for Judge Young, opposing counsel, the accusedand his Security Police escorts, and myself. The case was ajudge alone guilty plea, and moved very quickly. As soon asit was over, we trundled our many bags (professional gear,personal gear, chemical gear, and court reporting equipment)to the flightline and we returned to Riyadh on a British militaryaircraft.

Courts Before the StormMASTER SERGEANT CARRIE CARSON

As we were coming in for a landing at Riyadh, the crewinvited me into the cockpit and asked if I could pick out therunway from among all the lights. I had to admit that I couldnot. After pointing it out to me, they took their hands off theinstruments and said, “Okay, Air Force gal, they never taughtus how to land the thing. It’s up to you.” The aircraft pitchedand rolled a bit, and afterwards, Judge Young asked me what Iwas doing up there!! It was a little bit of levity in an otherwisearduous schedule.

After returning to Riyadh, we slept for a few hours, andthen flew to Dhahran where we were taken to King Fahd Inter-national Airport. The second court-martial involved an NCOcharged with theft of funds from the field exchange he oper-ated. Unlike the court at Tabuk, this trial was held in the huge,King Fahd conference room, lavishly decorated with Turkishrugs and mahogany furniture. This accused also pled guiltybut requested court members for sentencing. Routine voirdire questions changed in significance when posed to thisgroup of members... “Is there anything that is more pressingthat could prevent you from focusing your full attention tothis matter?” Well, of course, there was! War was imminent.The impending hostilities brought a new perspective to theproceedings.

After completing the court, Judge Young and I returned toRiyadh to await transportation back to the States. By now thedeadline set by the United Nations had passed, and we couldsense the anxiety in the troops around us. They were in vari-ous stages of readiness, but all had their weapons and chemi-cal gear at the ready. There was also a sense of urgency fromthose trying to get us back to the States...they seemed toknow something that we didn’t.

By the time we returned to the United States, DESERTSTORM had begun. We had just made it back, as the bombsbegan to drop. I felt lucky and grateful to be home, but I alsofelt very guilty and selfish for feeling that way. The soldiersand airmen deployed in Saudi were no longer faceless statis-tics, and I wondered why it was fair that I could return tosafety after just two short weeks when they had been there somuch longer. I had a really good cry during my layover at theAtlanta airport, and said a prayer for my comrades in Saudi.

I will never forget that deployment. In our daily routines weoften take for granted that we are first and foremost militarymembers who could be placed in harm’s way at any moment.Now, every time I feel the urge to complain about having towork late or perform tedious duties, I remember my two weeksin the desert and realize how insignificant my troubles reallyare.

Master Sergeant Carrie Carson is the Defense Paralegal Su-perintendent for the Air Force Legal Services Agency,Randolph Air Force base, Texas. She has attended the NCOPreparatory Course, NCO Leadership School (Levitow andCommunicative Skills Award recipient), NCO Academy (Dis-tinguished Graduate), and has completed the Senior NCOAcademy Course by correspondence. She has received herCCAF Degree in Paralegal Studies.


there I was in December of 1992, ner-vously walking onto what once hadbeen the Embassy lawn and hoping thatthe sniper we heard earlier didn’t haveme in his sights. This was one of thosetimes in life when you really wonderhow you got yourself to where you are.And why.

Actually, I never expected to even bein the military in the 1990s, let alone inSomalia. Despite my draft-inducedROTC commission my desire for a mili-tary career was, uh, “restrained” mightbe the word. I was delighted when myactive duty service was delayed to at-tend law school at, yes, Villanova. Fin-ishing there in 1975 and thinking I wouldserve only my four-year commitment, Ivolunteered for duty in Korea and En-gland — to “see the world.” I thor-oughly enjoyed both assignments and,as the years passed, the military becamemy home. So twenty summers aftergraduating from St. Joe’s, and fresh froma year at National War College, my wifeand I headed for Tampa, Florida, thehost to U.S. Central Command.

Central Command — GeneralSchwarzkopf’s old outfit — is respon-sible for overseeing U.S. military inter-ests in the Middle East and the Horn ofAfrica. Shortly after my arrival, newsreports of starvation in Somalia werebeginning to capture the nation’s atten-tion. By August a U.S. military airlift offood from Mombasa, Kenya, to variousrelief centers in Somalia had begun.

Colonel Dunlap (B.A., St. Joseph’s Uni-versity; J.D., Villanova) is the StaffJudge Advocate of 9th Air Force at ShawAir Force Base. He is a member of theState Bar of Pennsylvania.

COLONEL CHARLES J. DUNLAP, JR.

the Spear

Called “Joint Task Force PROVIDE RE-LIEF,” the airlift effort was a relativelysmall affair that never numbered morethan 1,000 troops. Nevertheless, it even-tually managed to deliver over 24,000tons of supplies. (Not a bad record con-sidering that the gigantic follow-on ef-fort begun that December — OperationRESTORE HOPE — required 24,000 U.S.troops to deliver only four times asmuch tonnage.)

I arrived in Kenya in early Novemberof 1992. As the Task Force legal officer,my job included interpreting treaties andinternational law, advising on contracts,and helping troops with their legal af-fairs. I also served as the plans andpolicy officer. In this capacity I gavepress briefings, liaisoned with the StateDepartment and relief organizations,escorted the media and VIPs, met withKenyan authorities, and coordinatedwith our British and German allies.

The real work — the scary stuff —was not done by me; it was done by theaircrews who flew into the isolated andprimitive Somali airstrips. In the monthsbefore the battle-ready U.S. combattroops of Operation RESTORE HOPEcrept warily into places like Baidoa, BeletUen, and Oddur, Air Force aircrewsmade daily flights to the same locations

The three loud cracks startled me � well,scared me, really. Of all things I neverexpected to be doing after graduating fromSt. Joe�s in 1972, dodging gunfire on thegrounds of the US Embassy in Somalia was

probably as close to the top of the list as anything. Yet

At the

Tip of


We climbed out into the kind of broil-ing sun that reminded me of my days asa Wildwood Crest lifeguard. But SouthJersey doesn’t have the sullen, glaringSomali men who “greeted” us that dayin Mogadishu. They kept their distance,but the kids — like curious childreneverywhere — cautiously approachedand smiled shyly. There weren’t anyother Americans in sight. All I couldthink of was “we’re not in Kansas any-more, Toto!”

Eventually we linked up with somePakistani UN troops, and made our wayvia a careening helicopter ride to theruined US Embassy where the Marineshad set up their headquarters. Findingthat my contact was still en route fromthe States, I happily accepted the com-mand sergeant major’s offer to show mearound the compound. As we enteredthe yard, three loud gunshots sounded.That can’t be what I think it is! racedthrough my mind. They sounded soclose, I thought it must have been ourtroops firing.

A young Marine yelled, “Don’t goout there, we’re getting more sniperfire!” Sniper fire? Yikes! Struggling tomaintain a semblance of composure, Ithought, Isn’t this the part where we’reall supposed to “dive for cover?” Thesergeant major looked at my drainedexpression with the kind of bored andpracticed condescension that only atobacco-chewing Marine Corps ser-geant major could muster. “Sir, they’reat least 400 meters away — they’ll neverhit us from there.” Unconvinced, Ithought oh sure, famous last words!But he was right. Never doubt a Ma-rine Corps sergeant major.

The final stop on the Embassy tourwas the sergeant major’s pride and joy,the new flagpole. Atop the jury-riggedstaff was a huge American flag. TheStars and Stripes, clean and radiantabove all the destruction and squalor,was quite a sight. “Some people tell meit’s too big, but I don’t think so. I thinkit sort of lets everyone know we’rehere.” He then hesitated and asked,with a bit more concern in his voice thanhe probably intended, “What do youthink, sir?”

Pausing for just a moment I said, “Ithink you’re right, sergeant major, I think

armed with little more than Swiss Armyknives on their belts and the Americanflag painted on the tail of their big C-130 cargo planes.

That’s not to say I wasn’t obliged togo to Somalia. I was and did. Indeed,Operations PROVIDE RELIEF/RE-STORE HOPE graphically reminded methat being an Air Force attorney is trulybeing a military lawyer. I also learnedthat lawyering is sometimes the easiestpart of the job.

My first trip to Somalia — weeks be-fore Operation RESTORE HOPE began— was to escort a congressional ‘fact-finding’ delegation. Towards the endof the flight, the visitors sheathed them-selves in the bulletproof vests that theEmbassy in Nairobi provided. Evidently,the Embassy — in an obvious attemptto cover all the bases should somethinghappen — had scared the dickens outof some of these people.

One of the young congressionalstaffers asked why the military escortsdidn’t have the protective vests as well.At that time hostile fire was so rare thatwe just didn’t use the vests and, in fact,they hadn’t been issued. But worriedthat their absence might reflect badlyon our Task Force, I explained as hon-estly as I could that the vests wouldnot, in any event, stop the heavy cali-ber munitions that the Somali clans of-ten used. Gloom began to creep overhis face. To try to make him feel better,I hurriedly added that he’d be glad hehad the vest if we hit a mine as welanded. (I had heard that a relief organi-zation aircraft had once struck a mine.)

Hearing that, he stood up, ripped hisvest off, plunked it on his seat, sat him-self down, and smiled - satisfied that akey part of his anatomy was well pro-tected. About then his plan startedlooking pretty darn good to me. I wastruly relieved when we uneventfullylanded. Needless to say, I got myself a

flak vest for the next trip. They makewonderful seat covers.

Another pre-RESTORE HOPE visitwas to Oddur where the Task Forcecommander was to negotiate an agree-ment with the local elders to allow therepair of the town’s dirt runway. Ourengineer, a driver, a spare radioman, andI went along “in case we were needed.”However, our general instructed us tostay at the airfield while he headed intotown with a couple of escorts.

A short time later the C-130 thatbrought us suddenly — and completelyunexpectedly — took off, leaving thefour of us surrounded by hundreds ofSomalis. I guessed that the general hadrun into some kind of a problem andhad radioed the aircraft to take off assoon as it could. At least the crew andthe plane could be saved. Recallinganti-terrorist training (from thirteenyears before!), I began talking to theSomali gunmen at the airstrip in orderto “humanize” our tiny band to our po-tential captors. I even made a show ofhaving my picture taken with the “se-curity” forces. It was a regular love-fest. Not!

When I got the photo developed, Isaw one of my new-found friends stand-ing behind me with a rifle seeminglyaimed at my back. So much for my bud-ding career as an escape and evasionexpert. As it turns out, we really weren’tin any danger; the general had merelyarranged for another aircraft to pick usup. As tactfully as the circumstancespermitted, I thanked him for keeping usso well informed.

After RESTORE HOPE began in De-cember, several of our people, myselfincluded, were ordered to Mogadishuto in-brief the newly arrived U.S. com-bat forces. Approaching the nearlyroofless “city” in a pint-sized Army C-12 airplane, the destruction was as ap-palling as it was complete. After receiv-ing clearance to land, we were directedto a long-abandoned taxiway. Bounc-ing along the broken pavement towardsthe parking apron we anxiously watchedas our plane’s wings sheared off over-grown bushes and saplings. We finallyparked near a half-destroyed hangerfilled with rusting MIG 17s and 19s —the remnants of the Somali Air Force.

The SJA/ J-5 desk at Ops Center, JTF PROVIDE RELIEF,Moi International Airport, Mombasa, Kenya.


you got it exactly right.” His facebrightened. “There you go, sir, thereyou go.” Satisfied, he smiled andturned away to go back to the endlesstask of looking after his troops. Like Isay, never doubt a Marine Corps ser-geant major.

The following day, armed U.S. heli-copters destroyed several “technicals”manned by Somali gunmen.(“Technicals” were pickup trucks con-verted to carry heavy machine guns orrecoilless rifles on their beds.) I heardthe fire and saw the helicopters, but Iwas too far away to see the actual at-tack. Knowing what I know now, I thinkthat this was the beginning of Somalia’sdescent back into chaos that so manypeople tried so hard to prevent.

I made a few more trips to Somalia,the last being one to Baidoa, a devas-tated town inland from Mogadishu. Wewere to coordinate some airlift mattersand to check on the progress that hadbeen made since RESTORE HOPEstarted. While we found that most ofthe really shocking starvation had beenabated, there clearly was still a lot ofwork to be done.

One of the places we visited was thetown’s crowded hospital — really justa collection of somewhat cleaner low-roofed structures. Just as we enteredthe courtyard, an American doctor, whoapparently heard us speaking English,burst out of one of the rooms. Maskedand bedecked in full surgical regalia, heheld his blood-splattered hands aloft ashe hopefully — and hurriedly — asked:“Are any of you guys doctors?” Obvi-ously disappointed and frustrated withour negative response (I didn’t have theheart to tell him I was a lawyer, let alonea Philadelphia lawyer!) he muttered anexpletive and raced back inside. I neverdid learn what happened, but given themisery in that place it could have beenany one of hundreds of medical crises.

I left the crowded hospital groundssomewhat dazed. Stepping over a mudpuddle I was startled when it moved.Looking down I realized that the“puddle” was a horribly emaciated half-naked elderly woman who had curledherself up so tightly she was nearly level

with the ground. Her strength gone,she evidently was hoping to receivesome help at the infirmary. But the glazein her eyes made it clear it was too lateto make a difference. Everyone said(and it’s sadly true): Somalia may notbe hell, but you can sure see it fromthere.

I saw little in Somalia, nor have Ilearned anything since I left, that sug-gests any near-term solutions to thegrinding problems of that suffering na-tion. The country is devoid of resourcesand racked by frequent droughts. Inaddition, entire generations of youngpeople not only are virtually unedu-cated, they will also suffer the lifelongmental and physical disabilities of pro-longed malnutrition. Most problematicis the nature of Somali culture itself.Medieval and pre-political, it’s a soci-ety where allegiance to clan is indisput-ably the strongest social impulse. West-ern-conceived political solutions aresimply unworkable among such people,especially given the ingrained xenopho-bia of most Somalis. Their contentiousattitude, their often cruel treatment ofwomen, and their openly anti-Christianand anti-Semitic views have combinedto antagonize those who would seek tohelp them.

Forty-four Americans paid the ulti-mate price trying to help. Scores morehave been crippled and disfigured forlife. I suspect that there will be no“Wall” in Washington for these soldiersand airmen, and their sacrifice in Soma-lia will soon be all but forgotten. But Ican’t forget.

Sometimes in Africa I thought of adiscussion years ago in a philosophyclass at St. Joe’s. The issue was whether

it was moral to feed starving peopleknowing that they would just produceyet another, even larger generation ofstarving people. To ask the questionillustrates the difference betweenacademia and reality: when you’re there,in the real world, there is no question -where there is life there is hope! AsAmericans we can always be proud thatat least we tried to give the Somalishope. The only true failure is the failureto try.

Before leaving Baidoa during that lasttrip we also visited a children’s feedingcenter. This particular center special-ized in the most desperate hunger casesand was manned by young Irish nurses— saints, actually. These magnificentwomen labored tirelessly to save thesickest of the sick. Not only did thelistless children bear the terrifying ef-fects of long-term starvation, they alsosuffered from a variety of equally fatalcommunicable diseases.

Did I say the ladies were saints? Wellthey are, but they are very down-to-earth saints. And thoroughly Irishsaints at that: they slyly told me howmuch they were looking forward to get-ting a beer during their next trip toMombasa. Not having any beer, wegave them some candy packets that wehad left from our Meal-Ready-to-Eatfield rations — the nurses literallysquealed with delight. I confess, thesewere the only squeals of delight asso-ciated with MREs that I heard duringthe whole deployment!

By the way, if you’re ever in EastAfrica and you hear some ladies just infrom the bush speaking with an Irishbrogue, buy them a beer. Consider thata direct order.

All photos courtesy of C

olonel Charles D

unlap

Colonel Dunlap and his �friend� withbow and poison arrows at Oddur,Somolia, (1992). Note the young manbehind him and the gun position.


“Congratulations on Your SelectionTo Visit the Desert”

MAJOR LEONARD L. BROSEKER

These words introduced me to Ali AlJaber Air Base, Kuwait the summer of1996 after I volunteered to go to theMiddle East. My predecessor at AlJaber wanted to put a positive spin onhis welcome letter, but the words some-how put me on notice that I was aboutto embark on an experience I was notgoing to forget. Since I would be inKuwait from July to October of 1996, healso felt it necessary to warn me “it isvery hot here in the summer.”

Despite my memories of the hotweather experienced during my time inSaudi Arabia while deployed in supportof Operations DESERT SHIELD/STORM, I was eager to “go back to theworld’s biggest sandbox.” The opera-tional aspect the “real Air Force” pro-vides is unique and is one that everyJAG needs to experience.

My position at Al Jaber would be amulti-purpose one. Not only would Ibe the base Staff Judge Advocate, butthe protocol officer, public affairs of-ficer, and the host nation liaison officer.As it turned out, I also became the ex-ecutive officer for Colonel William Hol-land, the new 4406th Air Support Op-erations Group commander, when hearrived in July, as well as his “staff,”until his administrative personnel ar-rived (which they did just before I leftin October).1 It quickly became appar-ent that I would be busy, though notnecessarily in my legal role.

Notwithstanding this observation,operational law issues were vital as il-lustrated in the next article written by asuccessor at Al Jaber. Operational lawissues can quickly come to the forefrontand become a matter of concern. For

Major Broseker (B.A., California StateUniversity, Sacramento; J.D.,McGeorge School of Law; L.L.M.,George Washington University) is acivil law instructor at the Air ForceJudge Advocate General School. Heis a member of the California State Bar.

example, in September 1996, towards theend of my tour at Al Jaber, operationallaw issues consumed a great deal of mytime when the Iraqi government attackedKurds in northern Iraq and Coalitionforces prepared to respond. Fortu-nately, the Iraqi government backeddown before Coalition forces executedtheir missions.

I arrived at Al Jaber on 14 July 1996where 122-degree heat greeted me alongwith my predecessor. He gave me a tourof the base, including a short tour ofthe Kuwaiti base headquarters build-ing, and briefed me on the status of sev-eral matters, and the nature of the rela-tionship with the Kuwaitis with whom Ihad to work. Unfortunately, my Kuwaiticounterpart had just left for professionalmilitary education and his replacementhad not been identified. My predeces-sor left the next day and there I was atAl Jaber Air Base, ready to go to work,with only a rudimentary idea of whatwas expected of me. Needless to say,being able to go with the flow and be-ing a quick learner was something Iwould have to fall back on to do my job.

I arrived in Kuwait about a month af-ter the Khobar Tower bombing and, asa result, the theater was a magnet forhigh-level visits. Al Jaber played hostto the Secretary of Defense,CENTCOM/CC, JTF-SWA/CC,ARCENT-K/CC, CENTAF/CC, and, of

course, the Downing Commission.CENTCOM/JA visited Al Jaber as well.The atmosphere at Al Jaber had dra-matically changed after the bombing.Personnel were restricted to the base,unless they had official business requir-ing them to travel off base. Securitymeasures increased dramatically in re-sponse to the bombing, the DowningCommission visit, and a CENTCOM se-curity team visit. Where before, travelto Kuwait City was allowed forsightseeing purposes, we now foundourselves locked down and restrictedto base. However, due to the nature ofthe mission, everybody was busyenough to avoid dwelling on this stateof affairs (for the most part).

Although one of my major roles wasthat of the Staff Judge Advocate, legalwork would not occupy the majority ofmy time at Al Jaber. Luckily, Air Forcemembers at Al Jaber were working toohard and focusing upon the mission toget into trouble, thus the military jus-tice workload was non-existent duringmy time there. I did some legal assis-tance, but averaged no more than onevisit a day. Since the November 1996elections were on the horizon during mystay there, I obtained the necessarymaterials for Air Force members to reg-ister to vote by absentee ballot from theFederal Voting Assistance Program per-sonnel at the Pentagon. I processed


one foreign claim at Al Jaber, but, sincethe Army had claims responsibility forKuwait, my role was limited to gather-ing information about the claim and for-warding it to the Army JAGs at CampDoha for adjudication. The legal workat Al Jaber definitely wasn’t L.A. Law.

Rules of engagement were an impor-tant and significant aspect of the SJA’srole at Al Jaber to ensure our pilots un-derstood what was expected of themwhile in Kuwait. I paid special atten-tion to the ROE and any changes tothem, since they could have been calledinto play at any time. A pilot from thesquadron in place at the time joined inteaching our ROE briefings. Thus, thepilots were briefed by a pilot who un-derstood the ROE and could apply themto their situation, as well by the JAGwho could provide a technical interpre-tation of what the ROE meant. It was anapproach that worked well.

Once the Kuwaiti base commanderidentified my Kuwaiti counterpart, liai-son between the two Air Forces wentsmoothly. Indeed, working with theKuwaitis became my number one prior-ity since our presence at Al Jaber wasdependent upon a good working rela-tionship with our hosts. Ensuring USForces had access to water, fuel, food,and other assistance-in-kind items wascritical and working with my Kuwaiticounterpart assumed special signifi-cance. Liaison with our hosts involvedthe mundane (getting the air condition-ing fixed) to the mission-essential (ac-cess to water, force protection, etc.).

I found the Kuwaiti Air Force to be agood host, although I had to adjust tothe “way they do things.” (Believe it ornot, Kuwaitis do not approach problemsthe same way we do.) I quickly realizedthat I could not approach an issue at AlJaber the same way I would approach itin the United States. I learned finesseworked much better than the direct ap-proach. As a result, though I had toinvest more time in a problem than I nor-mally would, I learned to be patient andunderstand the mission could still beaccomplished at the Kuwaiti pace ofdoing things. Regardless of the issue,it was necessary to coordinate with ourKuwaiti hosts to ensure issues were ad-dressed and problems generallyavoided. In the process, I also got toknow several Kuwaiti Air Force offic-ers well.

I also interacted with third countrynationals at the installation. Youcouldn’t avoid third country nationalsat Al Jaber, because they were exten-sively involved with running the baseand implementing Kuwaiti decisions. Idealt extensively with Egyptian civilengineers concerning the planned de-velopment of the “Coalition Village”housing for our folks. A Pakistani en-listed member was responsible for giv-ing us gasoline for our vehicles. Thesecurity personnel at several locationswere Pakistanis. Indians and severalAfrican nationalities made up the gen-eral labor pool at the base. It was theUnited Nations in action.

In retrospect, my tour at Al Jaber was

a challenging adventure I could not ex-perience at a CONUS duty station. Al-though the legal issues were not de-manding, the challenges of interactingwith our Kuwaiti hosts provided an op-portunity to exercise diplomatic and ne-gotiating skills. But, after spending asummer in the Kuwaiti desert, I wasready to go home. My welcome letterto my replacement began “Congratula-tions on your selection to visit thedesert.” (P.S.: I also warned him that itgets hot too.)

1 Colonel Holland used this aspect ofmy role at Al Jaber with humorous ef-fect at a US Embassy staff meeting afterhis arrival. He requested that I accom-pany him to the staff meeting for thepurpose of letting them know who I was,since he might be asking me to fill in forhim, if he was unable to attend a futuremeeting and the deputy group com-mander was not on station at the time.When Colonel Holland’s turn to speakcame, he began with a lengthy intro-duction explaining he was assemblinga “staff” to assist him and outlining thevarious roles they would play in the4406

th. It became apparent to people in

the crowded room that Colonel Hollandwas, indeed, assembling a large staffuntil he turned to me, asked me to stand,and introduced me to everyone thereas his “staff.” This prompted Ambas-sador Ryan to comment, “Dutch, youempire builder you,” when everyone inthe room realized Colonel Holland hadpulled their collective legs.

All photo courtesy of Major Leonard BrosekerTent City. (both photos) Ali Al Jaber Air Base, Kuwait (1996)


SOUTHERN WATCH in-cluding patrol of the south-ern “no-fly zone,” defensivecounter-air, and combatsearch and rescue. Our A-l0s, F-16s, HH-60s, and F-117s prowled the skies dayand night. Our radar con-trollers scanned the regionfor hostile activity and ourAvenger teams (ArmyHUMMVEEs with Stingerpods) provided point air de-fense for the runways andinfrastructure we used onthis Kuwaiti F-18 base.

Air Force judge advocates and paralegals have

provided assistance and ad-vice to operational com-manders since the birth ofour Department. The cur-rent pace of operations pro-vides a constant reminder ofour duty to remain preparedto advise and act based onthe principles we seek toconvey when we teach top-ics such as the law of armedconflict, targeting andweapon-eering, and forceprotection. I’ve met judgeadvocates who think theywill never need to masterthese topics. Hopefully, theexperience I relate below willconvince the reader other-wise, for I believe the con-sequences of a legal error inthe operational arena are asserious as any we face. I amalso convinced our ability asofficers is tested by such ex-periences in a unique andchallenging way. As I cameto understand in Kuwait, we

can (and, on occasion,must) do more than just un-derstand the ROE and briefthem to the pilots.

Take, for instance, asingle event on an averageday during my deploymentto Kuwait in 1997. As theSJA for the 4406th Opera-tions Group (Provisional) atAl Jaber Air Base, I servedwith about 1400 U.S. person-nel less than 50 miles fromthe Iraqi border. We per-formed a host of missions insupport of Operation

These operations and oth-ers were conducted in thetightest of security in thedays following the bombingat Khobar Towers. When Iarrived on station, the Grouphad been in THREATCONCharlie for over six months.In 11 years of active duty atstations around the globe,no THREATCON I have everexperienced (actual or exer-cise) approximated the blan-ket of coverage and protec-tion afforded our tiny instal-lation by the 4406th Security

Lawyering

MAJOR DAVID WESLEY

Major Wesley (B.S. and J.D.,University of Alabama) isthe Staff Judge Advocate,17 TRW/JA, GoodfellowAFB, Texas. He is a memberof the Alabama State Bar.

All photos courtesy of Major David Wesley

Operations

Maj Wesley, SJA for 4406th Operations Group (Provisional) (1997).


Forces Squadron. To learntheir operations and bereadily accessible to them, Ikept my radio set to the SFchannel and constantlymonitored their operations.That orientation was to payoff in an important way. On a warm day about halfway through my tour, I wasstartled to hear a call on myradio announcing the dis-covery of an explosive de-vice in a vehicle stopped atthe secondary entry controlpoint (ECP) of our com-pound. While we frequentlyexercised such scenarios,this was a call to “clear thenet and clear the area” sothat the explosive ordinancetroops could approach asuspected explosive device— this was a real emergency.When the call came in, I wasoutside the compound. Re-alizing our Security Forceswere closing streets sur-rounding the secondarygate, I set out on foot towardthe only remaining ECP. AsI got within about 100 yardsof the guard shack, anothermember of our unit directedmy attention to a car out inthe desert about a half-mileaway. The vehicle was liter-ally bounding over the sanddunes toward the berm thatformed the perimeter of ourcompound. I have no com-

bat training or experiencewith such matters, but it wasimmediately apparent thatthe bulk of our SecurityForces had just been pulledto the opposite side of ourperimeter and this vehiclewas an immediate threat towhat was now a lightly pa-trolled area. I broke into a run towardthe guard shack at the ECP.I had to slow down and raisemy hands as the two youngcops began training their M-16s in my general direction.Recognizing me, they re-laxed a bit and I pointed tothe car which was now lessthan a quarter of a mile fromthe berm. A call to the Secu-rity Forces Control by oneof the young cops was metwith a curt, “Stand by andclear the net!” because ofthe pre-existing problemwith the bomb at our sec-ondary gate. Given the car’srate of closure with the berm,it was clear that these twocops were going to have toaddress the situation untilbackup was available. Oneof the cops and I climbed upon a jersey barrier in an at-tempt to get a better view asthe car closed within a hun-dred yards of the berm. Thecar stopped suddenly, ap-parently stuck. The driverhopped out and began run-

ning toward the berm. Thecop standing next to mesaid, “Sir.. .is that a...?” I re-plied, “It looks like a rifle tome, Airman.” I recom-mended the cop call controlagain. This time, we wereable to request a fire team forsupport and one was pulledfrom the bomb scene to as-sist us. The team was still acouple of minutes awaywhen the rifle bearer slowedto a walk as he neared theberm. His decreased speedgave us a few more momentsto consider whether toshoot. To our great good for-tune, the “Hummer” arrivedwith the fire team and ourgunman was apprehendedbefore he reached the berm.His weapon, an M-16, wasconfiscated along with twoclips of ammunition, whichhe’d left on the front seat ofhis car. The man turned outto be an enlisted Kuwaiti AirForce troop who had beenat marksmanship trainingthat morning and had sim-ply “gone for a drive” nearour compound. I’ve tried to relate theseevents as dispassionatelyas I can, but I still rememberhow afraid I was. These twoyoung cops faced a difficultsituation and they wereclearly looking to me for

This is our highest callingand the most gratifyingwork I have ever done.

guidance. Their reliance onme resulted from their train-ing and the gravity of the is-sue. If they did not shootand this guy got over theberm, he could have doneserious harm to our peopleand equipment. If they didshoot and he turned out tobe non-threatening, rela-tions with our Kuwaiti hostscould have been seriouslydamaged. Both the copsand I had been trained onuse of force and the unit didflight level exercises on thesubject routinely. Still, mak-ing the decision to shoot ornot shoot in real time isnever as clear as PowerPointslides seem to make it. Suchtests come without warningand one passes or fails themin an instant. This experience and sev-eral others I had while at AlJaber have thoroughly con-vinced me that judge advo-cates must continually pre-pare for the opportunity toadvise a commander (or in-dividuals) in the field. Thisis our highest calling and ab-solutely the most gratifyingwork I have ever done.


Judge Advocates havetraveled the globe tosuch far-flung coun-

tries as Rwanda, South Af-rica, Honduras, Belarus, Es-tonia, Senegal, Sierra Leone,Bolivia, Ghana, Lebanon,Macedonia, Albania, andAustralia, to name just a few.Often they are working in ac-cordance with the ExpandedInternational Military Edu-cation and Training (E-IMET) Program, or a military-to-military training program.They represent our nation inthe finest manner as they aidin the implementation of sig-nificant U.S. foreign policyand promote universal re-spect for human rights.They lecture on a range oftopics from law of armedconflict, civilian control ofthe military, peace opera-tions, standards of ethicalconduct, to the UnitedStates military justice sys-tem. They do an outstand-ing job of carrying our flagand the principles of democ-racy and freedom around theworld. They return to theU.S. with a greater apprecia-tion of our world community,our own freedoms, and oc-casionally with a good story.Here are a couple:

In January 1997, DefenseInstitute of InternationalLegal Studies had com-

pleted its first-ever trainingin Ethiopia. The subject hadbeen Disciplined MilitaryOperations and the partici-

JAGs Around the Globe

pants represented all servicebranches and the Ministryof Defense. At the conclu-sion of the seminar we, theUS instructors, were theguests of honor at a banquetheld at the Addis AbabaO f f i c e r ’ s

C l u b .Our hosts really went“all out” for the event. Theyhad a live band, traditionaldancers and an elaboratebuffet prepared. At the com-mencement of dinner, we ap-proached the buffet enthu-siastically. To our surprise,the main entree was a freshlyslaughtered cow, chopped inbig chunks, completely un-cooked and wading in a poolof blood. This was not amarinated beef that youtook over to the grill to becooked - no, it was as “pre-pared” as it was going to

get. Rejection was not anoption in this social context,so after some mumblingabout “service before self”(and generous helpings ofthe local libations), we par-

took of the feast, sur-vived un-

scathed,and had an otherwise un-

forgettable evening.

On another occasion,a JAG was briefinga room full of for-

eign officers on war crimesand had a slight transla-tion problem during a brief-ing. When discussing theissues surrounding the ar-rest of suspected war crimi-nals, the JAG could not re-member the Spanish wordfor the word “arrest.” Think-ing quickly, albeit a little tooquickly, he substituted

“cogera” (taking) for arrest.Unfortunately, this particu-lar Spanish phrase has asexual connotation in LatinAmerica. Needless to saythere was an immediate pealof laughter. Interestingly,the incident put everyone atease and helped open upcommunications betweenthe participants.

Another time, a teamarrived in-countryto give a weeklong

set of briefings. Upon theirarrival, one of the team mem-bers excused himself to usethe facilities. As many ofyou know, conditions inother countries, even someEuropean ones, are not al-ways as good as in the US.The JAG walked into therestroom, shut the door be-hind and proceeded to takecare of matters. When done,the JAG walked to the doorto leave the restroom. Alas,there was no longer a door-knob! A careful examinationof the room revealed no win-dow from which an escapecould be made. There was atantalizing crack under thedoor, but our JAG was notquite thin enough to squeezeunder. All that was left todo was pound on the doorand hope for rescue. TheJAG pounded, the hostcountry officers came run-ning and all was well thatended well. The JAG wasno worse for the wear, andreportedly recovered nicely.


Reprinted with permission. ©Capp Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disaster Strikes!When disaster strikes, the General Claims Division of Air Force Legal Services Agency (JACC) has been here to help. Workinghand-in-hand with judge advocates and paralegals in the field, they paid millions of dollars in claims over the years. During the1990s alone, the General Claims Division oversaw payment of over $55 million to nearly 15,000 victims of disaster.

In the summer of 1991, Mount Pinatubo near Clark Air Base in the Philippines exploded, bringing death and destruction with themolten lava. In July, judge advocates and paralegals, active duty and reserve, from other PACAF and stateside bases beganarriving to help adjudicate and pay claims. What they found was the shocking havoc of dead animals abandoned inside basehousing during the panic, rotting food in refrigerators, and layers of ash solidifying into rock everywhere. JACC provided

guidance and assistance to base claims offices around the world who werehelping the evacuees. When Hurricane Andrew devastated Homestead AFB, Florida in September1992, JACC again provided guidance and assistance to the various bases wherethe evacuees found shelter. Following these disasters, JACC was instrumentalin getting the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees’ Claims Act (MPCECA),31 USC 3721, amended to increase the maximum payment from $40,000 to $100,000. JACC drew on its experiences with these disasters after a “500-year flood”hit the area around Grand Forks AFB, ND. JACC was instrumental in gettingCongress to pass special legislation allowing the services to pay claims for lossand damage to personal property suffered by members of the armed forcesresiding in the area affected by the flood. The FY 98 Defense AppropriationsAct authorized DoD to spend up to $4.5 millionof its funds for payment of personal property

claims to military members who were victims of the flood. Armed with this legislation, and withthe help of a TDY team, the claims personnel of Grand Forks Air Force Base adjudicated and paid199 claims totaling over $1.5 million dollars.

JACC was heavily involved in providing assistance to the victims of Supertyphoon Paka,which hit Guam on 16 December 1997. The eye of the storm passed directly over Guam, with thewind velocity of at least 236 mph. The wind may have been even more intense, but the instru-ments measuring the force of the storm broke when hit by the gale. The island was defoliatedwhile Anderson AFB lost power and suffered structural damage to buildings. Additionally, thewind forced water into base quarters, even in those units which did not suffer structural damage.Legal personnel at Andersen AFB, with the assistance of personnel from 13 AF/JA and a 5-person TDY team from HQ PACAF/JA, processed 816 claims, paying out $533,714.44. Back inWashington, DC, JACC had a representative in the Disaster Response Cell established by AF/XOOO to respond to the disaster.

(By Major Regina E. Quinn)

Courtesy of T

Sgt D

ionna H. S

mith

Cou

rtes

y of

TS

gt D

ionn

a H

. Sm

ith

Mount Pinatubo Explodes

Destruction rained down byMount Pinatubo.


Military AffairsThe General Law Division and an Interview with Mr. Everett G. Hopson

LIEUTENANT COLONEL JAMES E. MOODY

The General Law Division was estab-lished in 1949 as the Military Affairs Di-vision under the Directorate of CivilLaw. Over the course of the interven-ing years the Division’s namechanged—to Administrative Law (AF/JACM) in 1970 and to General Law (AF/JACM) in 1978. Finally, in 1991, it be-came a separate “three-letter” Division(AF/JAG), reporting directly to TJAGand physically located in the Pentagon.

A civilian has always headed theDivision. The first, Mr. JamesWrightson, served until his death in themid-1960s and was succeeded by Mr.John Everhard. Mr. Everett Hopsontook over after Mr. Everhard retired in1975. Mr. Hopson’s 19 year tenure asDivision Chief has been longest. In1994 Mr. Hopson retired. Between hisdeparture and the 1995 arrival of his re-placement — Mr. Harlan G. Wilder (thecurrent Chief) — Mr. Richard Petersonled the Division. Mr. Peterson has beenDeputy Chief since 1975. The DivisionChief was originally a “supergrade”position. In 1979 it was converted tothe Senior Executive Service (SES).

In 1969 the General Law Divisionmoved to the Forrestal building inWashington, consolidating the entireTJAG Department under one roof. In1977 it moved to Buzzard Point and twoyears later relocated again, this time tothe Pentagon, room 5E409. It recentlymoved to 5E279 (Pentagon) as part ofthe Pentagon renovation project.

The General Law Division provideslegal advice and guidance to the AirStaff, TJAG, staff judge advocates, andelements of the Secretariat, relating to

Lieutenant Colonel Moody (B.A., andJ.D., Samford University; M.A. Univer-sity of Alabama; LL.M. Tulane Univer-sity) is currently Chief, Employee LawBranch, AF/ JAG. He is a member ofthe Alabama State Bar.

the organization, operation, personneland functions of the Air Force. It re-views proposed personnel actions con-cerning officers. It also administers andhas primary responsibility for the AirForce standards of conduct program,including financial disclosure reports,and renders opinions, reviews, and in-terpretations of laws, regulations anddirectives. Further, the Division pro-vides legal and policy advice on a vari-ety of matters, including the Freedomof Information Act; fraud, waste, andabuse; political activities; commandand doctrine; Reserve and NationalGuard; general officer matters; drug test-ing; civilian personnel; equal opportu-nity, including sexual harassment; pro-fessional relationships and fraterniza-tion; cooperation with civilian law en-forcement officials; medical-legal prob-lems, including AIDS; spouse and childabuse matters; personnel issues, includ-ing separation, enlistment, promotions,and retirements; and IG and GAO in-vestigations.

The General Law Division reviewsand takes final Secretarial action oncomplaints under Article 138, UCMJ. Itreviews all Air Staff legislative initia-tives; comments on DoD legislative pro-posals; reviews enrolled bills, veto mes-sages, and private relief bills; and pro-vides legislative drafting services. TheDivision is also responsible for twopolicy directives and nine instructions.The Division originally served as thelegal advisor to the Military PersonnelCenter and had a field extension officeat Randolph AFB. Those duties are nowperformed by AFPC/JA.

The General Law Division is well-known for its publication of the CivilLaw Opinions of The Judge AdvocateGeneral of the Air Force (OpJAGAF).These opinions, selected because of AirForce wide interest in their subject mat-ter, are edited and sent to all legal of-

fices on a quarterly and annual basis.In addition, the General Law Divisionregularly publishes several years worthof opinions in the famous boundbluebook editions. The first of this se-ries of “bluebooks” was released in1978, covering the years 1961 through1977. The books were intended to fillthe need originally served by theLawyer’s Cooperative Publishing Co,which had discontinued its Digest ofOpinions of the Judge Advocates Gen-eral of the Armed Forces. Colonel CecilW. Williams edited the first bluebook,which overlapped with the Digest. The1961 through 1970 opinions were origi-nally published in THE REPORTER;though beginning in 1971 they wereedited and sent to the field directly fromthe Division just as they are today.Since then, there have been four edi-tions of the bluebook; Volume 2 cover-ing 1978 through 1983; Volume 3, 1984through 1987; Volume 4, 1988 through1991; and the recently published fifthedition containing opinions from 1992through 1996. In addition to the quar-terly, annual, and bluebook editions, theOpJAGAFs can be accessed electroni-cally through FLITE.

For a clearer understanding of the is-sues that the General Law Division hasencountered over the years, we soughtthe impressions of Mr. Everett Hopson:1

Q: Can you tell us a little bit aboutthe origin of the General Law Division?Mr. Hopson: The General Law Division,under one name or another, is as old asthe TJAG Department itself. It origi-nally began as the Military Affairs Di-vision and served as a catchall for what-ever the specialist Divisions didn’t do.Over the course of the years the list ofareas which we dealt with expanded.When I took over the Division in 1975we had no Freedom of Information Act,


The General Law Division, under onename or another, is as old as

the Department itself

no operations law, no environmental law,though these came later. Environmen-tal law eventually became a division ofits own, but at one time it was a one-attorney branch in the General Law (thenAdministrative Law) Division.

Q: Why was General Law made aseparate three-letter Division in 1991?Mr. Hopson: It used to be part of CivilLaw (JAC). It was decided to make JACa litigation directorate and JAG wouldhandle policy type issues. The name ofthe Division had been changed earlierto General Law because that term bestdescribes its functions, whereas mostpeople did not understand what Admin-istrative Law did.

Q: You mentioned that JAG areasof responsibility have expanded overthe years. Are there any others in addi-tion to the ones you have mentionedabove?Mr. Hopson: We early on became primefor standards of conduct and ethics is-sues. One thing we added was legalinput into senior officer IG investiga-tions. When I was in the Division wewould, from time to time, be called tocome to the IG office and discuss a case.When the Air Force began to crack downhard on fraud, waste, and abuse it wasdecided that JAG should review IG re-ports on general officers, general officerselects, and Senior Executive Serviceemployees. We began doing so on aroutine basis in 1989.

Q: What are some of the more in-teresting issues you saw come throughthe office during your tenure?Mr. Hopson: We did a considerableamount of work in developing the policyon fraternization. For a long time theAir Force had no written policy on it.This became a matter of concern to thefield. The General Law Division drafted

the regulation, with a lot of personal in-put from the Chief of Staff. He’d sendback drafts with his handwriting in themargins with suggested precise word-ing and policy.

Another area we were involved inconcerned the admission of women tothe Air Force Academy, especially inthe event a cadet should become preg-nant. Because you can’t be a cadet ifyou have dependents, the determina-tion was made that a pregnant cadetcould not remain at the Academy.

The Division was heavily involvedin developing and implementing thepolicy on homosexual conduct in themilitary. In earlier years homosexualconduct raised security issues. We had

a lot to do with how the “Don’t ask/Don’t tell” policy was implemented inthe Air Force.

AIDS became a high-visibility is-sue. Starting in the early 1980s the AirForce realized it had members who wereHIV positive. Questions naturally arosefrom this fact; whether they could bedischarged and, if so, at what point. TheAir Force position became that mem-bers would not be discharged until theywere unable to perform their duties. Wealso had input into questions of disci-plining members who violate safe-sexorders.

Q: Any “off beat” issues?Mr. Hopson: A while back we had anofficer on active duty who wanted outand adopted a religion in which heshaved his head and wore robes. Hiscommander finally got him back in uni-form. The individual then alleged un-successfully that he had been appointedto a civilian position as a building in-spector which, he urged, violated theDual Civil Office Act prohibition andrequired termination of his commission.

We were involved in hair issues.

Twenty years or so ago, when longerhair was stylish, we had male reservistswho would put their hair up and coverit with a wig. They were permitted to dothat, so long as they had a good mili-tary appearance.

Q: You were a member of the TJAGDepartment for about 43 years. Whatchanges have you noticed over time?Mr. Hopson: I think the proliferation ofspecialists is the most noticeable. Ofcourse, every specialist ultimately worksfor a generalist, and this had an impacton the duties of JAG, increasing ourworkload and responsibilities.

Thanks in no small part to Mr.Hopson’s leadership, as well as to the

contributions of numerous others, theGeneral Law Division is well placed toaddress whatever legal challenges thenew millennium poses for the Air Force.

1 Mr. Everett Hopson interview withauthor (11 January 1999). Mr. Hopsonentered active duty as a judge advocatein 1951 and served for 20 years until hisretirement as a colonel. While on activeduty Mr. Hopson became the firstmember of the TJAG Departmentassigned to the DoD General Counsel’soffice. In addition, early on in his careerhe served as trial counsel in the case ofU.S. v. Covert, which formed the basisfor a landmark Reed v. Covert, 354 U.S.1 (1957) decision concerning court-martial jurisdiction over civiliandependents overseas. (See Mr.Hopson’s article A Deadly Footnote tothe UCMJ, in this edition of THE

REPORTER.) After retiring from activeduty, Mr. Hopson worked as seniorattorney for the U.S. Postal Service untilhe returned to the Air Force in 1973 asDeputy Division Chief of the GeneralLaw Division and Chief in 1975.


The First Decade - The Forensic Medicine Program.Founded in 1969 as the Forensic Medicine Consultant-Advi-sor (FMCA) program,1 the Medical Law program has beenproviding the Air Force Medical Service and legal offices spe-cialized litigation support, health law counsel and training fornearly thirty years. Currently, the Medical Law program is setup in two parts: the Medical Law Branch of the Tort Claimsand Litigation Division under the Air Force Legal ServicesAgency and Medical Law Consultants (MLCs) located at eachAir Force medical center, the School of Health Care Sciencesand the USAFE Office of the Surgeon General. The HealthAffairs Branch that is collocated with the Medical Law Branchin Arlington, Virginia provides direct support to the USAF

Surgeon General (TSG).The need for a separate group of lawyers specially trained

and concentrating on health law issues was first identified byTSG in a letter to the Office of the Judge Advocate General(TJAG) in 1965.2 During the early sixties, TSG noted the dra-matic expansion in liability for medical practitioners, both ci-vilian and military. This expansion brought about not onlygreater numbers of medical malpractice claims3 but also newand increasingly complex medical legal issues.4 Recognizingearly the need for a new group of specialized medical lawyers,TJAG authorized the creation of a new specialty with the titleof Forensic Medicine Consultant-Advisor, now called MLCs.5

The Judge Advocate General also authorized the creation of

Major Becker (B.A. and J.D., University of South Carolina)is a Reserve Instructor assigned to The USAF Judge Advo-cate General School, Civil Law Division, Maxwell AFB, AL.He is a member of the S.C. Bar. Major Becker served twotours as a Medical Law Consultant, first at Keesler AFB, MSand then at the USAFE Office of the Surgeon General,Ramstein AB, Germany.

The Lawyer Is InThirty Years of the Air Force Medical Law Program

MAJOR RICK A. BECKER

an intensive seven-week medical law training course coveringmedicine, surgery, medical law, bio-ethics, hospital adminis-tration and risk management. The first FMCA course startedon 4 August 1969 at Malcolm Grow USAF Medical Center,Andrews AFB, Maryland.6

On 1 December 1969, the first group of FMCAs reported toeach of the Air Force’s medical centers and to the School ofthe Health Care Sciences. They were tasked with providingspecialized medical law advice, support and training to theirassigned medical centers and the hospitals and clinics in theirgeographic region. As a new specialty, some questions aroseabout their role. This led to a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) being signed on 8 November 1971 between TSG and

TJAG containing more complete guidance on the role andduties of the FMCAs. That MOU also formally establishedthe medical law course as well as the number and locations ofthe FMCAs. This information was subsumed into AFR 110-30, The Air Force Medical Law Program published in 1975.AFR 110-30 further delineated the organization, functions, re-sponsibilities and activities of the program.7

In 1976, the Tort Claims and Litigation Division released thefirst issue of The Handbook for Judge Advocates (Proce-dures for Use By AF Judge Advocates Investigating MedicalMalpractice Claims Against the U.S.).8 The Handbook be-came the single most important tool for new FMCAs and baseclaims officers dealing with medical malpractice claims. Anunofficial handbook, written by Captain Jeffrey L. Grundtisch,a FMCA at Keesler AFB, also gained a wide following. Hisbook, The Medical Law Quick Reference Guide, containedan alphabetical listing of medical law topics with referenceson issues ranging from abandonment to x-rays.

The Tort Claims and Litigation Division was reorganized in1977 in recognition of the growing amount and complexity ofthe claims and lawsuits. A larger staff with greater responsi-

We have been able to furnish counsel t ogarding all of their legal problems wit


bilities took the lead in every aspect of claims processing andlitigation.9 One such responsibility was the revision of AFR160-12, Medical Service Professional Policies and Procedures,which included guidance on such medical-legal issues as in-formed consent, abortions, patient rights and biological speci-mens for use in judicial proceedings. 10

At the end of the Medical Law program’s first decade in1979, medical malpractice claims neared 300 claims, with $5.2million paid out. Also, with nearly 200 open lawsuits litigationbecame an increasingly important issue.11 In the summer of1979, The Reporter published a special medical law editioncovering a wide range of emerging issues. Included in thatedition were articles on liability in genetic counseling and test-ing, abortion law, sexual sterilization of minors and mental in-competents, legal determinations of life and death and releaseof information from Air Force medical records.12

One new challenging issue of immense interest to the mili-tary medical community which occurred in 1979 was the re-lease of directives covering the implementation of 10 U.S.C.§1089, The Medical Malpractice Immunity Act. This Act, gen-erally referred to as the Gonzales Act, had been passed in late1976 to protect medical personnel from personal liability whileacting within the scope of their official duties.13 This protec-tion was of obvious interest to military medical providers whowere reading nearly daily media accounts of the malpractice“explosion” in the U.S. with claims in the private sector in-creasing by over 50 percent from 1972 to 1978 alone.14 Theexistence of a dedicated cadre of medical law attorneys trained

in medical malpractice issues was seen as extremely valuableby the Air Force medical community and was a highly visiblereminder of TJAG’s support of the importance of the medicalmission.

The Second Decade - The Medical Law Program Expands.The first two years of the Medical Law program’s second de-cade of service were extremely busy. An updated version ofAFR 110-30, released in 1980, changed the titles of the FMCAsto MLC. A new MLC position at USAF Hospital Wiesbaden,Germany was added.15 Over 200 medical malpractice lawsuitswere in litigation and administrative claims continued to grow.16

The implications of the statute of limitations case United Statesv. Kubrick17 were being explored. Kubrick’s finding that aclaimant must file their claim within two years from the timethey knew, or should have known, the claimed injury occurredwas to become one of the defining cases in medical malprac-tice claims. A demanding joint study was undertaken by theOffice of the Surgeon General and Air Force medical lawyerson treatment of the terminally ill in Air Force medical facili-ties.18 As a result, the Air Force was among the first to imple-

ment comprehensive training on patient rights, special con-siderations of the terminally ill and refusal of care issues. Anew AFR 160-41, Credential Review of Health Care Providers,was released with guidance on credentials revocation hear-ings.19

Of great interest to Air Force medical lawyers was the re-lease in 1980 of comprehensive Department of Justice regula-tions for settling Federal Tort Claims Act20 (FTCA) claims.These regulations, published at 28 C.F.R. §§14.1-14.11, pro-vided new ammunition in claims officers’ attempts to get claim-ants and their attorneys to adequately substantiate their claims.Also of interest to those in the medical law field was the suc-cessful litigation of the first medical malpractice suits fallingunder 28 U.S.C. §2680(h) exclusions for intentional torts.21

The scope of the Medical Law program continued to ex-pand into particularly demanding areas such as bio-ethics andpatient rights.22 Another growth area was the new emphasison risk management (RM) and quality assurance in medicalcare delivery. A new RM program, designed to improve medi-cal care at Air Force medical facilities and decrease malprac-tice claims began in 1980 under AFR 168-13, Risk Manage-ment in Medical Care Delivery (6 Apr 1981).23 This new pro-gram required all Air Force medical facilities to meet nationalmedical facility accreditation standards. It also created nu-merous new legal issues for medical lawyers such as the con-fidentiality and release of medical records and RM docu-ments.24

Finally, 1980 holds the dubious historical distinction of be-

ing the first time the unofficial MLC symbol, a JAG badge witha superimposed caduceus, was used in conjunction with anew column in The Reporter dedicated to medical law. Thatcolumn, entitled Medical Law and Risk Management, was toremain a staple of The Reporter until 1986 when it was changedback to a general claims section.25

The next two years, 1982 and 1983, also saw numerous medi-cal legal changes and challenges. Large medical malpracticeclaims continued to demand attention with settlements reach-ing the million-dollar mark and beyond. In fact, the largestadministrative settlement to date, $1.7 million was paid to thefamily of a child severely injured during birth.26 This largeamount, however, was negotiated using a structured settle-ment device that greatly decreased the up-front cost to thegovernment.27 Litigation also continued apace, with 188 medi-cal malpractice lawsuits in 1982 demanding over $400 millionin damages.28 The program continued to expand to betterserve the growing military presence worldwide. A new MLCposition was added at USAF Regional Hospital, Clark AB, thePhilippines.29 AFR 112-1, Ch. 19, and The Handbook for JudgeAdvocates Investigating Medical Malpractice Claims were

o commanders at all levels re-h the consequent acquisition of a repu-


both completely revised in 1983 to clarify the investigativeprocess and evaluation of claims, particularly damages as-sessment.30 AFR 160-12, Medical Services Professional Poli-cies and Procedures was also revised with expanded guid-ance on abortions, informed consent and other medical lawissues. Finally, a new Department of Defense Directive 6000.7(29 July 1982) was released giving long anticipated guidanceon dissemination of adverse information on medical practitio-ners.31

1984 saw a major change in the previously constant growthin medical malpractice claims. That year the numbers of claimsreceived actually decreased. However, while the number ofclaims dropped, the amounts claimed and the complexity ofthe issues raised continued to grow. From mid-1983 to mid-1984, claims received dropped by a third, but pay out for ad-ministrative settlements substantially increased to an all timehigh of $570,383,273.32 1984 was also to become significantbecause of a change to AFR 112-1 concerning tracking ofclaims data. A four-part form, AF Form 2811, 2812, 2813, and2814, was introduced to track quality of care information oneach claim. The change required a standard of care determina-tion be made on each claim. The gathering and control of thissensitive information was of obvious concern to Air Forcemedical professionals.33 The Medical Law program and theTSG office on professional standards, working closely to-gether, were able to use the credibility each had built up overthe previous years to put the majority of providers’ concernsto rest.34

As a reflection of medical law’s growing importance, in 1985THE REPORTER published several medical law articles includingmedical malpractice in the aeromedical evacuationsystem,35 valuation of medical malpractice cases and claimsexposure for failure to report child abuse.36 Due to impetus byMajor General Morehouse for Judge Advocates to have moremedical law background, Mr. Joseph A. Procaccino, Jr. (nowthe Legal Advisor to TSG and Chief of the Health AffairsBranch) formulated a new one week intensive mini-medicalmalpractice law course to be held at David Grant USAF Medi-cal Center, Travis AFB, California.37 Also, following Mr. BenChappell’s tenure at Brooks AFB, Texas as legal advisor forTSG, Mr. Neil Richman at HQ USAF/JACC was assigned asthe first special counsel and liaison with the Office of theSurgeon General.38 A major new law designed to protect theconfidentiality of RM and quality assurance information, 10U.S.C. §1102, was passed.39 More medical law articles werepublished, including two articles by Mr. Procaccino, one ofwhich being the now well-known examination of the special x-factors that often drive damages evaluations in medical mal-practice cases.40

At the end of the second decade of the Medical Law pro-gram, the AF Form 2811 was completely revised in 1988 tobetter track quality assurance information. Information wasprovided to the field on implementation of protections avail-able under the new 10 U.S.C. §1102.41 Also of interest tomedical lawyers in 1988 was the passage of The Federal Em-ployees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act.42 Gen-erally referred to as the Westfall Legislation, the Act amendedthe FTCA to make it the exclusive remedy for common lawtorts arising from actions taken by federal employees while inthe scope of their employment.43 This change to the law wasmostly of interest to military medical providers who had heardrumors that the Gonzales Act had been abolished. Many ofthe issues which had been around at the beginning of the firstdecade continued to be of interest, including questions onthe possible overturn of the Feres44 decision, failure to diag-nose cancer cases,45 contributory negligence,46 and informedconsent issues.47

The big news of 1989 was the new Health Care QualityImprovement Act,48 which created the National PractitionerData Bank that was to become effective by the end of the year.The Data Bank, a compilation of reported paid claims data andserious credential actions against providers, caused an un-derstandable stir in the medical and legal communities.49 Theother big issue in 1989 was the growing interest in patientrights, especially in the area of disability legal planning50 andrefusal of medical care.51 Propelled by the extensive action inState court cases concerning patient rights, the Joint Commis-sion on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations picked upon the issue and began mandating new standards in the area.This emphasis on patient rights continued as the big issueinto the most recent decade of the medical law program.52

The Third Decade - Continuing Challenges. In the begin-ning of the third decade of the Medical Law program, it be-came obvious that the new medical law specialty was evolv-ing at an even greater and unanticipated pace than in previ-ous years. The acceleration of change in the legal, scientificand medical components of the specialty was not slowing atall. The new challenges included cutting-edge issues dealingwith computerization of medical records,53 downsizing tradi-tional pay-for-fee medical care reimbursement and the phe-nomenal growth of managed care,54 and telemedicine.55

In 1990, the Air Force Law Review published one of its“specialty issues.” In the past, these had covered traditionalareas such as Legal Assistance, International and OperationsLaw and Military Justice. This time it covered Claims and TortLitigation, with over half of the articles dealing with medicallegal matters.56 The Law Review also published that same

[T]here has been dynamic development in all of the other fields of law in become increasingly complex, and so has international law. Our claims patent law are constantly changing; the complexity of our modern world is


year a major article on AIDS issues in the military.57 Theseand other shorter articles which continued to appear regularlyin The Reporter made it clear that medical law was coming ofage as an area needing expert guidance. Indeed, from 1991 to1994, a huge number of articles on a wide range of medicallegal issues were published in The Reporter reflecting thecontinuing challenges faced by the Medical Law program.These issues included: product liability and the Safe MedicalDevices Act,58 the 15-year anniversary of the Kubrickdecision,59 and physician licensing issues.60

Following a patient rights trend started nearly ten yearsearlier, Congress in 1992 passed the Patient Self-Determina-tion Act (PSDA).61 The PSDA came after Congressional hear-ings revealed large numbers of Americans felt medical facili-ties were not responsive enough to their needs and rightsregarding withdrawal or continuation of care when terminallyill. The PSDA was created to spur medical facilities into pro-viding information on advance directives and medical facilitypolicies on this issue.62 Air Force MLCs led the way in ensur-ing base legal offices were trained to support their medicalfacilities as regards the PSDA.

The Handbook for Judge Advocates Investigating Medi-cal Malpractice was completely revised in 1993 by Ms. HildeConte Pearlstein, senior medical law attorney at HQ USAF/JACT. Also, that year the need for greater expertise in healthlaw policy, bio-ethics concerns and quality assurance initia-tives led to the creation of a new Health Affairs Branch. Mr.Joseph Procaccino assumed the position of Chief of the Branchand consolidated his JACT function with that of becomingthe Legal Advisor to the Air Force Surgeon General. One ofthe first challenges for Health Affairs was obtaining greaterawareness and expertise in the new evolving managed careinitiatives that later became TRICARE in DoD. The followingyear, 1994 saw the creation of two TRICARE attorney posi-tions at Keesler AFB, Mississippi and Wright-Patterson AFB,Ohio. These attorneys were tasked to provide expert legaladvice on the new and nebulous areas of managed care pro-curement and liability.

A new revision of AFI 44-119, Air Force Quality Assuranceand Risk Management was issued in 1995. It contained anupdated version of the claims and quality data tracking form,AF Form 2526 (which had replaced the earlier four-part AFForm 2811,12,13, and 14).63 While not new, questions contin-ued on medical policy issues such as informed consent64 anddo not resuscitate orders.65 In 1996 The Reporter published amajor two-part article on clinical privileging actions.66 Thefollowing year, the Air Force Law Review published an articleon the split between circuits on the issue of Feres applicabil-ity to military members temporarily medically retired.67 In re-

sponse to the need for greater depth in medical legal training,the first LL.M. in Health Law was approved in 1997. MajorEric Israel, a former MLC and presently Chief, Medical LawBranch, was chosen for the program.

In 1998, in addition to the usual work on medical malprac-tice claims and litigation, there was a complete change in guid-ance for the investigation of medical malpractice claims withthe introduction of AFM 51-504, Tort Claims and Litigation.This Manual superceded the previous guidance provided byThe Handbook for Judge Advocates Investigating MedicalMalpractice.68 In the Spring of 1998, the first Federal SectorHealth Law Symposium was held in Bethesda, Maryland. Itwas sponsored by the JAG School and the Uniformed Schoolof the Health Sciences with additional financial support fromthe JAG School Foundation. The Symposium covered a widerange of medical law topics with a concentration on managedcare challenges. Finally, 1998 saw the passage of a PortableLicensure law as part of a change to 10 U.S.C. §1094.69 Thelaw allows military medical physicians to practice in any stateon official business regardless of the state where the physi-cian is licensed.

Parvus Joculus Jurisprudentiae Medicae70. Through-out the Medical Law program’s almost thirty years, the AirForce has led the way in providing dedicated in-house coun-sel to Air Force medical providers. In that time, MLCs haveproven themselves dedicated professionals but perhaps haveleft some with the impression that they have no sense of hu-mor. To dispel that notion I enlisted the help of one of the firstMLCs, Colonel Scott McLauthlin, now Staff Judge Advocateat Air University, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. As the senior MLCat Wilford Hall, Colonel McLauthlin worked with the legend-ary medical law assistant, Ms. Mary Blood, who retired in1996, after 27 years. It seems Ms. Blood complained to thenCaptain McLauthlin about a burned out light bulb in the MLCoffice. The gallant young Captain decided to fix the problemright away and proceeded to stack a trash can and a box on achair to replace the bulb. Unexpectedly (to him) the chairmoved and Captain McLauthlin crashed to the floor. Thefollowing staff meeting, the medical commander asked if any-one knew how many MLCs it took to change a light bulb andthen promptly answered his own question with, “Only one,but it also takes a full ER, a radiologist, and a physical thera-pist.”71

Final Thoughts - The Unsung Heroes. No history of theMedical Law program would be complete without mention ofthose individuals who form the backbone of the program - themedical law assistants and paralegals who work for the MLCs

which we operate. Administrative procedures and administrative law have operations have expanded into many new areas; procurement law and reflected in the complexity of the litigation we now handle.

~ Major General James S. Cheney on the Department’s 25th anniversary


and headquarters. These individuals are located at each MLCoffice and provide a wide range of legal support services,including: research, typing support, law librarian, scheduling,and notary services. Whether active duty or civilian, they area combination of paralegal and corporate legal administrativeassistant. They remind attorneys about meetings and dead-lines, act as gatekeeper, and are often the repository of yearsof corporate knowledge.72 Without their dedication and hardwork the medical law program simply would not have been thesuccess it has been these thirty years and the final word shouldgo to them.

1 For an excellent review of the early medical law years, see LtCol Robert G. Douglass, Medical Malpractice is of SeriousConcern to the Air Force, THE REPORTER, no. 10., pp. 28-36(June 1975). See also Major Walter Phillips, The ForensicMedicine Program, THE REPORTER, no. 5. (Aug 1978) at 23.[hereinafter Phillips] 2 Phillips supra note 1, at 23. 3 Before the 1960’s, the Air Force had negligible medicalmalpractice claims with only four filed in 1963 for a total of$15,276.00. By 1965 the Air Force was handling approximately50 claims a year and that number tripled from 1970 to 1976 andtripled again from 1976 to 1979. Robert N. Spencer, TheHospital Incident Report: Asset or Liability?, 22 A.F.L. Rev.148 (1980-81). See also Charles W. Freeman, Air ForceRegulation 168-113: Risk Management or Malpractice SuitSupport?, 22 A.F.L. Rev. 418.419 (1980-81). 4 The explosion of medical legal issues was not anticipated bythe legal or medical professions. Medical law as a distinctspecialty has occurred only in the past 30 years and is mostoften attributed to the huge expansion in Federal and Stateregulation of the burgeoning medical industry, similar to theway the environmental laws of the 1970’s created the need forenvironmental lawyers. 5 The Judge Advocate assigned to the School of Health CareSciences at Sheppard AFB, TX was given the unique title ofForensic Medicine Instructor Advisor to reflect the job’semphasis on teaching. Phillips supra note 1, at 23. In April1994, the School’s MLC position was expanded from strictlyteaching to also servicing it’s own region of Air Force medicalfacilities similar to the other MLC positions. Interview withMajor Bill Carranza, Instructor, USAF JAG School (3 February1999). Major Carranza was the Sheppard MLC at the time ofthe changes. 6 Phillips supra note 1, at 23. The MLC course has been heldevery year since 1969. It provides medical law training notonly to prospective MLCs, but also to other Air Force lawyersinvolved in medical legal issues as well as medical lawyersfrom other military services and departments. 7 Id. An updated version released in 1980 changed the titles ofthe FMCAs to MLC. THE REPORTER, vol. 9, no. 1 (Feb 1980) at25. 8 Id. The Handbook was updated and expanded in 1980 and1982 with a shortened title, The Handbook for JudgeAdvocates Investigating Medical Malpractice Claims. Seealso, THE REPORTER, vol. 11, no. 5 (Oct 1982) at 158.

9 See Joseph A. Procaccino, Jr., Medical Malpractice Claimsand Lawsuits, THE REPORTER, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 202-203 (Dec1979). 10 THE REPORTER, vol. 1, pp. 7-11 (Aug 1977). 11 THE REPORTER, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 79-80 (Apr 1980). 12 THE REPORTER, vol. 8, no.4, pp. 107-132 (Aug 1979). Theprevious year, Capt Douglas W. Lyon, Jr. published The Patientas Human Test Subject, in THE REPORTER, vol. 6 (Oct 1978) at 4-9. 13 The Act was also interpreted as covering Red Crossvolunteers and providers in training. See Maj Walter D. Phillips,The Medical Malpractice Immunity Act, THE REPORTER, vol 8,no. 6., pp. 204-206 (Dec 1979). For more on physicians intraining, see Maj Sherri W. Johnson and Neil S. Richman, TheBorrowed Servant Defense and the Federal Tort Claims Act:Defending Physicians in Training, 33 A.F.L.Rev. 171 (1990). 14 John F. McCue, Jr., The Discretionary Function Exceptionand Military Hospital Administration, 22 A.F.L. Rev. 59 (1980-81). 15 When Weisbaden was closed in 1992, the MLC position wasmoved to the Office of the USAFE Surgeon General atRamstein, AB, Germany. 16 THE REPORTER, vol.10, no. 2 (Apr 1981) at 70 and vol. 9, no. 6(Dec 1980) at 211. 17 444 U.S. 111 (1979). 18 THE REPORTER, vol. 9, no. 2 (Apr 1980) at 80 and vol. 9, no. 4Aug 1980) at 150. 19 THE REPORTER, vol. 9, no. 1 (Feb 1980) at 25. 20 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80. See Lt Col Hervey A. Hotchkiss,An Overview of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 33 A.F.L. Rev. 51(1990). 21 THE REPORTER, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 151-152 (Aug 1980). 22 See e.g., Capt Jeffrey L. Grundtisch, InvoluntaryHospitalization and Involuntary Medication of MentalHealth Patients, THE REPORTER, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 170-175 (June1980). 23 THE REPORTER, vol. 10, no. 1 (Feb 1981) at 22 and vol. 9, no. 1(Feb 1980) at 23. 24 See Capt Robert N. Spencer, The Hospital Incident Report:Asset or Liability, 22 A.F.L. Rev. 148 (1980-81). 25 While no one interviewed for this article would state exactlyhow the symbol and new section came about, it should benoted that it occurred at exactly the same time the infamousMr. Walter Phillips became Chief of the Medical Law, Claimsand Tort Litigation Staff, Office of The Judge AdvocateGeneral. Medical law as a separate section is again a part ofTHE REPORTER, published when medical law subjects areprovided to the publication. 26 THE REPORTER, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 65-68 (Apr 1982). 27 The use of structured settlements became commonplace inthe 1980’s in reaction to the ever-increasing size of claimpayments. Their usefulness in negotiations was highlightedand championed early on by the Claims and Tort LitigationStaff in D.C. THE REPORTER, vol. 12, no. 3 (June 1982) p. 92. 28 THE REPORTER, vol. 11, no. 3 (June 1982) at 92. 29 Id. The new MLC’s region encompassed Korea, Japan, Guamand Hawaii. While the Philippines MLC position was short


lived, ending with the closure of Clark AB in 1991, it had abusy history with the largest to date settlement under theMilitary Claims Act of $1.3 million for a birth injury beingnegotiated in 1987. Interview with Lt Col Al Hickey, reserveMLC attached to Keesler Medical Center (2 February 1999).Lt Col Hickey holds the distinction of being the longest servingMLC, having served four years, three months as MLC at ClarkAB. 30 THE REPORTER, vol. 12, no. 2 (Apr 1983) at 158. 31 THE REPORTER, vol. 11, no. 6 (Dec 1982) at 188. 32 THE REPORTER, no. 4 (summer 1984) at 24 and no. 2 (winter1985) at 24. 33 THE REPORTER, no. 2, pp. 29-30 (winter 1984). 34 The major concern of providers was who was to determinethe standard of care in a case. It was made clear from thebeginning that such determinations would be made by themedical community, not the lawyers. Also, concerns aboutcontrol of and release of the compiled information wereanswered with assurances that release would only be doneafter due process reviews. 35 Maj Jack W. Smith, Medical Malpractice, the Federal TortClaims Act, and Aeromedical Evacuation, The Reporter, no.3, pp. 12-16 (Spring 1985). 36 Capt Scott D. Stubblebine, Dollars for Injuries - The PersonalInjury Valuation Trauma, The Reporter, no. 2, pp. 8-13 (Winter1985); Failure to Report Child Abuse, Id. at 24-25. 37 THE REPORTER, vol 13, no 1 (Mar 1986) at 24. This medical lawshort course has continued each year since 1985 and coversmost of the medical and legal issues addressed in the MLCcourse, but in abbreviated format. It is intended for claimsofficers and others requiring in-depth medical law training. 38 Id. 39 THE REPORTER, vol. 13, no. 4 (Dec 1986) at 30. 40 Id. at 29. These x-factors include: sympathy, bias, degree ofnegligence and defendant-witness character. Joseph A.Procaccino, Jr., Pre-Natal and Post-Natal MalpracticeConsiderations, Id. at 4-10. Mr. Procaccino also became theeditor of the Claims section in The Reporter in 1986 and startedhis now famous use of Latin phrases for his section breaks.Translations of these phrases were provided during the 1987and part of the 1988 publications of The Reporter, but werethen discontinued presumably because every reader is awareof their meaning. For those who are not, they are: res gestae(General Matters); arbitria et ijdicia (Settlements &Judgments); and verba sapienti (Words to the Wise). 41 THE REPORTER, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 30-31 (Sept 1988). 42 Pub. Law. No. 100-694, codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80 (FTCA). 43 Lt Col R. Craig Anderson and Lt Col John M. Pellett, PersonalCivil Liability for Federal Employees and TheirRepresentation by the Department of Justice in the Aftermathof the Westfall Legislation - An Introduction for the BaseJudge Advocate, 33 A.F.L.Rev. 19, 25 (1990). See also, MajMichael P. Frederick, Scope of Employment Under the FederalTort Claims Act and Attempts to Expand the Limits, 33A.F.L.Rev. 69 (1990) 44 Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950). See The Reporter,

vol. 14. no. 2 (June 1987) at 22. See also, Col Edwin F. Hornbrookand Capt Eugene J. Kirschbaum, The Feres Doctrine: HereToday - Gone Tomorrow?, 33 A.F.L.Rev. 1 (1990). 45 Id. See also Lt Col Michael J. Fox, The Loss of ChanceDoctrine in Medical Malpractice, 33 A.F.L.Rev. 97 (1990). 46 THE REPORTER, vol 14, no. 3 (Sept 1987) at 26-28. 47 THE REPORTER, vol. 14, no. 4 (Dec 1987) at 27. See also,Joseph A. Procaccino, Jr., Autonomy, Consent, and theConflict of Rights in Health Care, 33 A.F.L.Rev. 183 (1990). 48 42 U.S.C. §11101 et seq (1989). 49 THE REPORTER, vol. 16, no. 3 (Sept 1989) at 21. 50 THE REPORTER, vol. 16. no. 4, pp. 2-8 (Dec 1989). 51 Id. at 27. 52 See Capt Steven A. Hatfield, Planning for Disability: TheDurable Power of Attorney, The Reporter, vol 17, no. 3, pp.2-6 (Sep 1990). 53 THE REPORTER, vol. 17, no. 4 (Dec 1990) at 23. 54 THE REPORTER, vol. 19, no. 2 (June 1992) at 25-26. 55 THE REPORTER, vol. 22, no. 2 (June 1995) at 25. 56 Vol. 33, A.F.L.Rev., The Master Claims and Tort LitigationLawyer’s Edition (1990). Most of the medical law articles fromthis issue have been previously cited in this article.57 Col John A. Anderson et. al., AIDS Issues in the Military, 32A.F.L.Rev. 353 (1990). 58 21 U.S.C. §360. See THE REPORTER, vol. 18, no. 3 (Sep 1991) at27-28. 59 Supra note 16 and accompanying text. See also, THE REPORTER,vol. 21, no. 2 (June 1994) at 26. 60 THE REPORTER, vol. 21, no. 4 (Dec 1994) at 23. 61 42 C.F.R. 417 et seq. 62 THE REPORTER, vol. 19, no. 2 (June 1992) at 26. While thePSDA did not specifically apply to the military, the Air ForceSurgeon General and Judge Advocate General decided that asa matter of policy the Air Force should apply the majority ofthe directives in our facilities to ensure Air Force patientscontinued to receive the same high standard of care asprovided at our civilian counterparts. 63 THE REPORTER, vol. 22, no. 1 (Mar 1995) at 22-23. 64 Id., no. 3 (Sep 1995) at 26-27. 65 Id., no. 4 (Dec 1995) at 30. 66 Maj Kenneth J. Kramer and Capt Guillermo R. Carranza,Clinical Privileging Actions in the US Air Force MedicalService, THE REPORTER, vol. 23, no. 2 [part one] (June 1996) &no. 3 [part two](Sep 1996). 67 Hilde Conte-Pearlstein TDRL and the Feres Doctrine, 43A.F.L.Rev. 259 (1997). 68 Interview with Ms. Conte Pearlstein (3 February 1999). 69 THE REPORTER, vol. 25, no.1 (Mar 1998) at 22. 70 This nod to Mr. Procaccino’s use of Latin in his quarterlyTHE REPORTER column means “A little Jurisprudence humor.” 71 The author would like to thank Colonel McLauthlin for hisgracious permission to include this story. 72 As a personal note, I can safely say that my two medical lawassistants, Ms. Janet Sellers (still at Keesler) and Mr. Eric Mi-tre (whereabouts unknown), were truly the ones who kept mefrom making a complete fool of myself. I know from conversa-tions with other MLCs that they feel exactly the same abouttheir staffs, both past and present.


Leading the

Revolution

“West(Law)” was merely associated withdusty old regional reporters in law librar-ies and “Lexis,” was neither a car nor acompany, just another word for a lexicon.But the American Bar Association hadformed a Special Committee on ElectronicData Retrieval and in August of 1961, thiscommittee demonstrated the retrieval oflegal information with a computer.3 Col

Vos, a witness, had his vision confirmed.When he returned to the Finance Center,he organized a team of pioneers to turnhis dream into a reality.4 These Found-ing Fathers included, Edward G.Duckworth,5 Jack Sieburg,6 Jim Hoover,Ken Western, and Donald C.Dietemann.7 As with any new birth, aname was needed. This endeavor wouldhenceforward be known as: LITE —Legal Information Thru Electronics.8

The LITE YearsUnder the careful nurture of Col Vos,

LITE began its life, and on 17 July of 1963,received its official christening authori-

zation from Air Force Headquarters.9 ColVos’ vision, and the work of the LITE com-mittee, was about to come to fruition. Butit would again be an unlikely source thatwould launch this cyber odyssey.

In the early 1960s, the Health Law Cen-ter of the Graduate School of PublicHealth at the University of Pittsburgh hadalso been experimenting with the storingand retrieval of textual information.10

Accordingly, a contract was signed andtesting began in June 1964 using an IBM1410 computer, and Volumes 19 - 41 ofthe United States Code and a portion ofthe published Comptroller General Deci-sions.11 That same year would be Col

Four Decades of Information Technology Excellence

John Paul Davis (B.S.E.E., Purdue Uni-versity; J.D. Regent University) is anAttorney-Advisor with AFLSA/JAS. Heis a member of the District of Columbia,Illinois, and Minnesota Bars. He is alsoan Assistant Staff Judge Advocate in theAir Force Reserves.

The Air Force Legal Information Services (AFLSA/JAS), like the Air Force itself, was bornof a new technology—the electronic computer. Its story however, begins not within theJudge Advocate General’s (TJAG) Department, but rather with the Air Force Accountingand Finance Center (AFAFC) in 1961.1 In June 1961, the curiosity of Colonel Calvin M.Vos, Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) at AFAFC, as to the use of a computer to store andretrieve legal information, would be the shot that would begin the Legal Information Tech-nology Revolution for the Department of Defense.2 This was in the days when the name

MR. JOHN PAUL DAVIS


Vos’ last year in the Air Force, but as acivilian, he would continue to providecounsel and support from his new posi-tion in Washington, D.C.

LITE, while conceived in the Air Force,quickly attracted interest from its sisterServices, as well as a broader interest fromothers in the Federal government. OnDecember second and third of 1964, thefirst LITE conference was attended bythe General Counsels of Bureau of theBudget and the Government Account-ing Office, fiscal counsel of the Office ofthe Secretary of Defense and the Depart-ments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force,and the Chief Staff Member of the HouseDefense Appropriations Subcommit-tee.12 With the blessings of this LITEContinental Congress and the leadershipof Col Vos’ successor, Col Charles A.Kelley, LITE would enter into a three-yearstring of contracts with the University ofPittsburg.13 LITE now began to maturewith the inclusion of the 1964 edition ofthe United States Code, the first 44 vol-umes of the published Decisions of theComptroller General, the decisions of theCourt of Military Appeals, the decisionsof the Boards of Review as embodied inthe Courts-Martial Reports, and certainregulations and manuals.14 The truematuration of LITE, however, came on 10August 1965, when the Office of the Sec-retary of Defense appointed the Air Forceas the Exective Agent for the manage-ment and operation of LITE.15

The next major milestone for LITE cameon 12 March 1969, when the AssistantSecretary of the Air Force for FinancialManagement transferred managementresponsibility for LITE from AFAFC tothe United States Air Force Judge Ad-vocate General (AFJAG).16 This adop-tion of LITE was effective 1 July 1969and for the next decade and a half(through December of 1984), LITE wouldoperate as a Field Extension Branch ofthe Special Activities Group, under theAFJAG (TJAG).17

While LITE’s first computer contractwas with the University of Pittsburgh,LITE’s data would see many migrations.The first came in the spring of 1967 whenDELCOS, Inc., a subsidiary of theMcDonnell Douglas Corp., won the con-tract and would host the LITE system forthe next three years.18 For fiscal year

1970 however, ComputerManagement and ServicesCorporation of Washington,D.C. received the contract.19 This how-ever, would have near dire consequencesfor LITE.

Just months after receiving the con-tract, the Computer Management ServicesCorporation defaulted on its rental pay-ment to the Radio Corporation of America(RCA) for the use of its Spectra 70/45

computer,the com-puter hosting LITE.20 Since RCA hadreceived no money, on 27 February 1970,Black Friday, it pulled the plug, and theLITE data became inaccessible.21

However this would be but one ofmany near death experiences for LITE.

The founders:(clockwise startingin top right corner)Mr. EdwardDuckworth,Mr DonaldDietemann,Col CharlesKelly, andMr. JackSieburg


Its history is replete with tales of forces,some technological, some political, somecivilian, military, or from the private sec-tor, which threatened LITE’s demise. Yetit always, somehow survived. Why? Be-cause of LITE’s determination to stay atthe forefront of the Information Technol-ogy Revolution!

Like resilient freedom fighters, LITEregrouped at the Finance Center wherean IBM 360/65 computer was used to re-constitute the system.22 LITE’s staff,unwilling to entrust their dream solely tocontractors, began taking IBM coursesthat enabled them to convert from theRCA system to the IBM platform.23 Itwas a daunting task, one that those lack-ing vision would have easily dismissed.But after only five months, on 20 August1970, LITE returned to full operation.24

It was a hard lesson to learn and one thatalmost killed the dream, but one that LITEwould remember: LITE must remain itsown master as an in-house, AirForce controlled activity.

However, only weeks after re-turning to full operation, the con-trol of LITE would again become anissue.25 LITE received not one, buttwo unsolicited proposals from ci-vilian contractors to assume the op-eration of LITE.26 Mindful of itsrecent brush with extinction

through a contractor, LITE anxiouslyawaited the results of a study conductedby the Directorate of Automatic Data Pro-cessing Division at Hanscom Field, Mas-sachusetts.27 When the verdict was re-turned, it was found that the continuedoperation of LITE by the governmentwould be 66% cheaper than using a con-tractor.28 LITE lived on!

This interest by private companies wasnot surprising since word of LITE wasspreading around the globe. LITE wasregularly entertaining a host of interna-tional visitors. By the end of 1970,Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy,Japan, and Sweden, had all visited themile high city to inspect LITE.29 The LITEphenomenon was also attracting inter-est in the halls of Justice. The owner-ship of LITE was again placed on thetable, but this time it would be a potentialintra-governmental transfer.

In February 1971, the Assistant Sec-

retary of Defense, Mr. Robert C. Moot,proposed that LITE be transferred fromthe Air Force to the Department of Jus-tice (DoJ).30 Transfer negotiations werestarted, but when an impasse wasreached, specifically regarding budgetsand personnel, the issue went to Con-gress.31 The future of LITE now restedwith those on Capital Hill.

The House Committee on Appropria-tions established a committee to deter-mine a clear mission statement for LITE,to determine if adequate resources wouldbe applied to accomplish this mission,and to see which government agencywould accomplish the mission most ef-fectively.32 It was an exciting time at LITE.Would LITE become a DoJ asset? WouldCongress establish LITE as the legal re-search system for the entire Federal Gov-ernment? But amid this expectation, theshadow of a less glorious outcome hung:Congress could determine that the LITE

It may be that some Federal Agency other than the Air Forceshould run LITE...Until another agency steps forward the AirForce is willing and proud to continues as the executive agentfor LITE ~ Colonel Charles A. Kelly

ComputerDinosaurs: Thecomputers borrowedat nighttime from theAir Force Accountingand Finance Center torun LITE in the mid-1980s.


program should simply be terminated.33

By 1973, Congress had reached a ver-dict.34 The Committee determined thatLITE was a valuable addition to the legalfield and should be continued under AirForce control.35 Once again the shadowof death had passed over LITE.

A New NameFor over a decade, data had been la-

boriously added to LITE, one key strokeat a time. The 1968 contract with Delcos,Inc., for example, required them to pro-vide data at a rate of 1,250,000 words permonth.36 But on 9 October 1974, just onecharacter was added to LITE, the letter F.By DoD Directive 5160.64, LITE becameFLITE — Federal Legal InformationThrough Electronics.37 A new era hadbegun!

The growth of FLITE would continuethrough the 1970s. By April 1978,FLITE’s searchable databases in-cluded:38 U.S. Constitution & Amend-ments; United States Code; U.S. Reports/Supreme Court Reporter; Federal Re-ported 2nd Series; Federal Supplement;Federal Digest; U.S. Court of Claims De-cisions; Armed Services Procurement

Regulations; Board of Contract AppealsDecisions; Comptroller General Deci-sions; Court-Martial Reporter/MilitaryJustice Reporter; Air Force Regulations;Code of Federal Regulations; Manual forCourts-Martial; Treaties & InternationalAgreements.

In addition to this respectable collec-tion, FLITE had also scheduled the in-clusion of the following databases:39

Opinions of the U.S. Attorney General;Digest of the Opinions of the Judge Ad-vocate Generals; Federal Reporter 1stSeries; Statutes at Large; Legislative His-tories and Executive Orders contained inthe U.S. Code, Congressional and Ad-ministrative News; Regulatory materialof the Department of Defense and otherMilitary Services; Uniform Code of Mili-tary Justice Legislative History.

But FLITE was now, by no means theonly show in town. The 1970s saw anincreased growth of the application ofthe electronic computer in the practice oflaw. The Department of Justice had de-veloped their own system called JURIS -Justice Retrieval and Inquiry System. Ina rare form of inter-governmental agencycooperation, in 1978, FLITE entered intoan agreement with the DoJ to share data.Now a FLITE attorney had access to twosources of computerized legal informa-tion.

In 1982, the Judge Advocate Generalconvened a Blue Rib-bon Panel on DataAutomation.40 TheJanuary 1983 final re-port recommendedthat FLITE assume ad-ditional missions in-cluding software de-velopment, central-ized procurement ofJAG computer equip-ment, and the devel-opment of an on-linedatabase search sys-

tem.41 To perform these additional mis-sions, seventeen additional positionswere recommended to be added to FLITEfor a total authorized strength of seventy-seven. This would be a bitter-sweet vic-tory for FLITE since while it would neversee the seventeen new positions, it wouldsee the assumption of new missions, andthe gradual erosion of its personnelstrength.

In December 1984, FLITE again saw amigration. FLITE became a Directorateunder HQ USAF. The Legal InformationServices Directorate (JAS) would assumethe responsibilities outlined by the BlueRibbon panel. That year, 1984, would alsobe the zenith year for FLITE’s personnelstrength. FLITE had grown from an ideain a colonel’s mind, to an organization ofsixty-three. But the next decade wouldsee FLITE’s manning cut by over sev-enty percent, first as these new programstook people away from FLITE, and thenas FLITE became an easy target duringthe military downsizing. But adversitywas nothing new to the FLITE team, andeven with a reduction in manning, FLITEaccepted the challenge, and in October1988, FLITE deployed an on-line com-puter assisted research system.42 FLITEhad empowered the people and for thefirst time an attorney in the field could dotheir own computerized legal research onFLITE.

FLITE of the new Millennium: Aroom full of 1980s computers has beenreplaced by this single terminal, keyboardand computer.


The Other ProgramsIn 1985 JAS developed a comprehen-

sive plan to define the requirements andcentrally acquire software and hardwarefor Air Force legal offices worldwide.This effort would become the ResourceManagement Division (JASR) and hasbeen supplying the department withstate-of-the-art equipment for the last de-cade and a half.

The second program JAS adopted wascalled the Claims Administrative Manage-ment Program (CAMP).43 This programwas replaced by another one entitled, AirForce Claims Information ManagementSystem (AFCIMS).44 The Alpha versionof the program was tested by six AirForce Bases in June of 1989.45 Beta test-ing began in 1990, and AFCIMS 1 wasreleased in 1993.

In 1993 JAS adopted the AutomatedMilitary Justice Analysis and Manage-ment System (AMJAMS). The historyof AMJAMS however stretches back tothe early 1970s.46 On 25 April 1972, theimplementation of AMJAMS was autho-rized by the Director of Data Automationfor the Air Force.47 The system was de-signed to enable the Judge AdvocateGeneral’s Department to collect and ana-lyze data pertaining to courts-martial andnonjudicial punishments.48 AMJAMSwas released as a functional system inJuly 1974.49 This program would con-tinue to be modified for the next two anda half decades.50

The Move to MaxwellFor more than three decades, LITE,

FLITE, and then JAS called Denver, Colo-rado home. However, that was about tochange. JAS was moving to Maxwell AirForce Base, Montgomery, Alabama andwould be collocated with the Air ForceJudge Advocate General’s School in anew building, the Dickinson Law Cen-ter.51 It was hoped that the collocationwould create a mutually beneficial syn-ergism and maximize scarce resources.52

In addition to the human migration, theFLITE data was also on the move. FLITEmoved from an IBM mainframe computercontrolled by the Air Force Computer Ser-vices Center in San Antonio, Texas, to aSun Systems mini-computer owned by,controlled by, and located at JAS!53 Itonly took three decades, but FLITE fi-

nally had its very own home. No longerwould FLITE be “turned off” because thefunds to pay for time on the mainframecomputer had run out.54 In addition,FLITE could now be accessed from notjust the CONUS but worldwide.55 Finally,FLITE converted to a more user-friendlyresearch software system, and systemuse began to rise. FLITE had received anew lease on life.

In January 1996, FLITE became thefirst computer assisted legal researchsystem to be accessible via the WorldWide Web. WebFLITE was born. Whilean on-line connection to FLITE had beenavailable for seven years, and worldwideaccess for over two years, the Internetfinally brought FLITE home to everydesktop. Everyone could now easily ac-cess the electronic law library, conductresearch, visit legal web sites, or send anelectronic mail message.

FLITE has seen rapid change in thelast years. FLITE now hosts web sitesfor many organizations, including the AirForce Court of Criminal Appeals and theCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces.FLITE is developing an electronic filingsystem for the Air Force court to allowpleadings to be submitted over theInternet. To support operations, FLITEis establishing a presence on the secureInternet, the SIPRNET. But what still re-mains is a committed staff of legal/tech-nical professionals who like Col Vos in1961, dream of new ways to apply theelectronic computer to the practice of law.

The Future is ITSo what does the future hold? If the

past tells us anything, it is that IT—In-formation Technology—is the right trainto be on. Gone are so many of the battlesof the past. Yes, a computer is a good

thing. Yes, an attorney needs a computer.Yes, computerized legal research works.Yes, . . . the list goes on and on, but theverdict is simple: The Information Tech-nology Revolution won, and JAS was aleader in the battle!

But what about the future of JAS? Willthe manning continue to shrink, espe-cially for the FLITE division? Or will theresources needed to lead the revolutioninto the next millennium be supplied? Willlitigation support become a new missionat JAS?56 What programs will finally becompleted and/or new ones added? WillFLITE truly become the legal IT systemfor the Department of Defense? Or asthose who decades ago testified to Con-gress, does FLITE’s destiny lie even be-yond the narrow confines of one Federaldepartment?57 Is FLITE truly to becomethe Federal Legal Information [Technol-ogy] Through Electronics system? If thepast four decades have taught us any-thing, it is that the train ride that will bringus the answers to these and others ques-tions will certainly be an exciting one. Allaboard, the Revolution continues!

1 Richard P. Davis, The LITE System, U.S.AIR FORCE JAG L. REV., Nov.-Dec. 1966,at 6. See Thomas B. Wilkins, History ofLITE, 14 U.S. AIR FORCE JAG L. REV. 7(1972).2 Gary D. Null, Development of theFLITE Program, THE REPORTER, June1997, at 30.3 Before the Subcomm. on MilitaryOperations of the Comm. On Gov’tOperations, House of Representative, at2 (Aug. 1, 1967) (statement of ColonelCharles A. Kelly, Staff Judge Advocate,Air Force Accounting and FinanceCenter, Denver, Colorado)4 Null, supra note 2, at 30.5 In 1970, Edward G. Duckworth wasserving as an Attorney-Advisor for theLITE activity. He received an LL.B.Degree from the Denver UniversityCollege of Law and was a member of theColorado and Wyoming Bars. He was amember of the American Association forthe Advancement of Science, and wasan instructor in law at Metropolitan StateCollege in Denver, Colorado.6 Jack Sieburg officially joined the LITEstaff as a system research analyst in 1964.In 1966, he was responsible for LITEresearch and development activitiesinvolving Electronic Data Processing(EDP) applications. In 1972, he was Chief


of the LITE EDP Section, but remainedactively involved in the system designand programming activities, particularlythose involving photocomposition andspecial product requirements. Prior toentering the computer field in 1958, hehad approximately fifteen yearsexperience in accounting and financeoperations as a member of the UnitedStates Air Force. In addition to his workin the area of information retrieval, he wasalso involved in major EDP Systemsdesign covering payroll, monetary andsupply accounting, and personnelmanagement. Majoring in mathematics,he has attended the University of Omaha,the College of William and Mary, and theUniversity of Denver.7 In 1966, Donald C. Dietemann was anAttorney-Advisor with the Office of theStaff Judge Advocate, Air ForceAccounting and Finance Center. Hereceived a LL.B. degree from theUniversity of Illinois and was a memberof the Colorado, Illinois, and Federal Bars.As a member of the American and Inter-American Bar associations, he receivedformal training in Basic ComputerSystems and Computer Programming. Heserved as a Consultant in ElectronicRetrieval of Legal Information for theUniversity of Denver and began full timework in LITE operations in February of1964.8 Davis, supra note 1, at 6. “While therecognized title is Legal Information ThruElectronics, it has become much broader.It might better be called L ibraryInformation Thru Electronics.”9 Kelly, supra note 3, at 4.10 Davis, supra note 1, at 6.11 Kelly, supra note 3, at 5.12 Id. at 6. (Mr. John Horty of theUniversity of Pittsburgh was also inattendance.); see Wilkins, supra note 1,at 7.13 Id. at 7-8.14 Wilkins, supra note 1, at 8.15 Kelly, supra note 3, at 7.16 Wilkins, supra note 1, at 8.17 Id.18 Kelly, supra note 3, at 8; Wilkins,supra note 1, at 8.19 Wilkins, supra note 1, at 8.20 Null, supra note 2, at 31.21 Id.22 Wilkins, supra note 1, at 8.23 Null, supra note 2, at 31.24 Id.25 Id.26 Id.27 Id.

28 Id.29 Id. (Norway had also made inquires,but did not come for a visit.)30 Id.31 Id. at 32. (This was not the first timeLITE had gone to Washington, D.C.See Kelly, supra note 3.)32 Id.33 Id.34 Id.35 Id.36 Kelly, supra note 3, at 8.37 “Thru” was also changed to“Through.”38 Michael E. Murphy, FLITE’s Use inManagement of a Legal Office, THE

REPORTER, Apr. 1978, at 43. See MichaelE. Murphy, Computer-Assisted LegalResearch—A Look at FLITE, 8 THE

REPORTER 33 (1979).39 Id.40 Legal Information Services: Air ForceLegal Office Automation Program, THE

REPORTER, Dec. 1986, at 22. The 1982Judge Advocates General’s Blue RibbonPanel members include: BGen Gordon A.Ginsburg, Col Robert F. Dunham, Lt ColDonald C. Rasher, Lt Col Carl E. Edwards,Jr., Maj Richard A. Ranker, Maj Eric L.Winborn, Capt Thomas M. Sullivan, andSSgt Michael W. Rynning. Blue RibbonPanels would also meet in 1992 and 1998.41 Id.42 Legal Information Services, THE

REPORTER, Sept. 1988, at 24.43 Legal Information Services: Air ForceLegal Office Automation Program, supranote 40, at 22. See Alex J. Ranciglio,CAMP as a Management Tool, THE

REPORTER, Apr. 1978, at 37.44 Legal Information Services, supranote 42, at 25.

45 Legal Information Services, THE

REPORTER, Sept. 1989, at 24.46 Michael G. McCormack, TheAutomated Military Justice Analysisand Management System (AMJAMS)—an update, 8 THE REPORTER 151, 152(1979).47 Id.48 Donald P. Gilmore, The Use of AMJAMSin the Management of Military Justice,THE REPORTER, Apr. 1978, at 20.49 McCormack, supra note 42, at 152.50 For example, in July 1988, Version 2.20of AMJAMs bridge program wascompleted and distribution wasauthorized by TJAG. Legal InformationServices, supra note 43, at 24.51 Legal Information Services, THE

REPORTER, Mar. 1991, at 28.52 Id.53 Legal Information Services, THE

REPORTER, June 1993, at 29.54 Legal Information Services, THE

REPORTER, Dec. 1991, at 29.55 Legal Information Services, supranote 52, at 30.56 See Litigation Support in the AirForce: Evaluations of AlternativeApproaches, AFLSA/JAC ProcessAction Team Report (9 Jan 1998) (on fileat AFLSA/JASL) (“The PAT determinedthat the best litigation support model forthe Air Force is an AFLSA/JASLitigation Support Division.”).57 Kelly, supra note 3, at 1 (“We believewe have a system that can be of value tojust about every attorney in the FederalGovernment, and to many others in theGovernment.”)


Excerpt from:

A CLUE FROM THE GRAVE:A Mesmerizing True Story of Madness and

MurderIrene Pence

Chapter Twenty-Four

Reprinted by permission fromA CLUE FROM THE GRAVE, by Irene Pence.

Copyright © 1997 by Irene PencePublished by Pinnacle Books, an imprint of Kensington Publishing Corp.

Not available electronically due to copyright restric-tions. Please see printed edition.


Real Excerpts From Air Force JAGEfficiency Reports

(no kidding, we saw copies)

· “What little he doesn’t already know about a legal office he can find out fast.”· “I’d trust him to run my office or drive my car.”· “Is the Solomon the commanders consult when the decisions get hard.”· “He’s my headlights and rear view mirror.”· “He is breathen to the alchemist; created gold from base metal.”· “This man could give close order drill to a flock of chickens.”· “Has always been an ocean going tug in a force 10 gale. Plows over, through, and under the waves. Alwaysrescues the sinking ship.”· “I’m willing to close my eye and sign anything he has written.”· “A good soldier. He’d volunteer for KP if he thought it would help the mission.”· “If I had to start my own Air Force, this man would be in the initial cadre.”

They Put That In Writing?!(Actual entries from various official Air Force Documents)

·From a hand-written request for a “hardship” assignment (date unknown):

“I am trying to get a passionate reassignment back to the States or hardship transfer.”

·From a military member’s 25 Nov 82 statement in response to a notification that he was being recom-mended for discharge by his commander:

“I was so shocked when I was told by my commander that I was going to be discharged from the Air Force. Iknow that I was in a motorcycle accident, got a D.W.I. in this accident, failed a urinalysis test for marijuana, andwas jailed for indecent exposure, but I did not think that I would be discharged from the Air Force.”

·From an airman’s statement on “My reasons for being apprehended with a controlled substance (mari-juana) (date unknown):

“On the day of said infraction I was possessed by the Holy Spirit. I was fulfilling my duty to God. I wasexercising my freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I was studying the Bible where it is stated in GenesisChapter 9 verse 3 where God is talking to Noah and his sons and He said, “Every creature that is alive shall beyours to eat; I give them all to you as I did the green plants.” He is saying that we can have everything that isgiven by God. Did man make the herb? No, God made it . . .”

·From an appeal of an Article 15, 31 May 1983:

“In regards to the proposal to impose Judicial Punishment by means of an Article 15 for failure to go, Article 86of the UCMJ to wit I am guilty of not complying with. . . . I wish at this time to try to inopose restrainable efforttowards the part which exclaims Reduction to Airman. . . . My only hope is to an oblique motion towards asuspension in rank rather than lose my rank altogether. . . . I induced this proposal by means of gainingsolicitious attitude toward my performance and behavior as an Airman also this would better intensify myefforts toward development as being career minded. . . . It would attempt to apply a more perceptible feeling fromyou towards my achieving my tasks in a respective and responsible manner that I’m sure of developing andproceeding through the ranks at a normal pace. . . . I respectfully ask that full incentive be given on my recursionin view of my current proposal to make contributing efforts in adjusting and producing myself more favorableas a member of the ________ Squadron and the U.S. Air Force to what I am proud of serving them both.”

(Submitted by Lt Col David Hoard, USAFR)


50The Office of the Staff Judge Advocate is now more active

than ever before in all the history of the Armed Forces. Ithas expanded in scope, in function and in purpose. The ser-vices rendered by it have become more comprehensive andimportant. While the responsibility for legal and related ser-vices is that of the Staff Judge Advocate, the primary objec-tive of the legal office is to render service to the commander,his staff and the personnel assigned to his command. Theservice performed must always contribute to the accomplish-ment of the mission of the command served. The value of alegal office is measured by the character and type of servicerendered to its clients — the commander, his staff and thepersonnel of his command.

The Office of the Staff Judge Advocate is arecommending agency and not an action agency.

A judge advocate has no command authority. He must becareful not to usurp the prerogatives of the commander or ofany other staff agency. Each judge advocate should avoidany tendency to butt in on the business of other staff officersby giving advice when it isn’t requested. There is nothingmore likely to arouse the antagonism of the head of a staffsection than the belief that the judge advocate is infringingupon his responsibility and function. This always results indisrupting the harmony of the staff, arousing the jealousy offellow officers and thereby diminishing the judge advocatesvalue to his commander.

To a marked degree a judge advocate’s duties involve ahuman relations function. In his capacity as a judge advocatehe deals primarily with people, not only with those who per-sonally seek his counsel but with those for whom he preparesopinions, comments and recommendations. The name on eachpiece of paper represents an individual with human traits andpersonal characteristics. If the judge advocate knows thepeople with whom he corresponds, it will help him immeasur-

As Much as Things Change;They Remain the Same

The following article was published in THE REPORTER, Vol. I, No. 5, at 33, November 1959, following its initial publication inJAG NOTES, Number 1, 6 February 1959, published by the Tactical Air Command at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia.

A GOOD JUDGE ADVOCATE IS NOT BORN�HE IS

MADE

COLONEL BRYAN L. RAKESTRAW

ably in the discharge of his duties. While all commanders andtheir staff are entitled to legal service, many subordinate com-manders on a base are hesitant to seek timely legal advice. Toovercome this, periodic visits by the judge advocate to theunit commanders on the base have proved valuable. Suchpersonal contacts build up confidence and foster a mutualunderstanding which works to the benefit of both. Undersuch a relationship the unit commander will be more inclinedto seek the advice and counsel of his friend, “the Judge,”before he takes any action in military justice or other legalmatters. Furthermore, personal acquaintance and professionalassociation with the members of the local bar, the judges, thesheriff, the chief of police, the county attorney, and other lawenforcement agencies are very important. Such associationwill not only enhance the base-community relations but willprove valuable to a judge advocate in the performance of hisfunctions. Moreover, it is important for a judge advocate tomaintain close personal relationship with his fellow staff mem-bers. By doing so, a mutual understanding of the problemsconfronting each staff agency is created.

It is important that all judge advocates remember thatthey along with other staff officers are members of

the commander’s team. As staff officers it is importantthat you work in harmony with the members of other staffsections. In doing so, you must avoid embarrassing yourfellow staff officers. There are occasions when a staff sectionrequests coordination on a matter and you discover a regula-tion specifically prohibiting the proposed action. Instead ofciting the error in a written memorandum, which infers that theauthor did not know what he was doing, it is much better tocall the director of the staff section concerned and give him anopportunity of withdrawing his proposal. Any staff officerwould much rather have his oversight brought to his personalattention by a judge advocate than to suffer the embarrass-ment of having it first reach the commander or even the chiefof staff.

An important attribute of a good judge advocate is that ofmodesty — the ability to avoid giving the impression of being

The author is the Staff Judge Advocate of Tactical Air Com-mand and is a graduate of University of Oklahoma (LL.B.)and Georgetown University (LL.M.) Law Schools and a mem-ber of the Oklahoma Bar.


a “know-it-all.” Although a judge advocate, because of hisexperience, education and training may believe himself betterequipped to analyze or to make a staff study of a problem, hemust recognize that there are other experts on the commander’sstaff beside himself.

Unfortunately, there is a common misconception that judgeadvocates are specialists in the field of law and know littleabout other subjects. Although all judge advocates are pro-fessionally trained as lawyers, they must know somethingabout everybody’s work. They must be familiar with the mis-sion of their command and know enough about all the func-tions in their headquarters to intelligently understand the prob-lems of each staff section. This is necessary in order to renderwell-reasoned opinions with respect to questions concerningthe work of other staff agencies.

To be a good judge advocate an officer must bewilling to contribute his talents on non-legal sub-

jects as well as legal questions. Where no legal aspectsare involved in a problem, it is a simple matter to return thecommunication with a terse comment “no legal question in-volved.” Such a comment is of little or no help to the personor office seeking assistance. If one of your clients has a prob-lem and thinks it important enough to ask your advice or opin-ion, he deserves an answer. There are times, of course, whena judge advocate is not equipped to provide the answer. Inthat event — say so. But at the same time advise your clientthat you will get the answer for him. If you make a practice ofpreparing sound, logical and well-reasoned opinions, they willbe of value to your commander and staff and should be ren-dered whenever requested, even though no legal question isinvolved.

A judge advocate should utilize his skill to assist the com-mander in making a decision. You do not serve a commanderor his staff by telling them that their proposal is contrary tolaw or military directives. If there is no legal solution, of course,the commander must be so informed, but only after everymeans have been fully and thoroughly explored. It is mostimportant to advise how to avoid illegal and undesirable ac-tions and yet achieve the desired end. If you stop your think-ing after enumerating valid objections to a proposed courseof action, you have failed to serve your commander. But oncea final decision has been made — though it is different fromyour own recommendation — the commander has the right toexpect your full support and cooperation in carrying out thedecision.

Many of you have found that a commonly accepted doc-trine is that of “substantial compliance” or “substantial jus-tice.” Loosely interpreted these phrases mean that if the endresult is desirable and justified, there is no objection to theviolation of the few regulations to achieve that end. Thisbelief is not at all uncommon with some staff offices. How-ever, we should be the last one to adopt it. When called uponfor advice, point out any prohibition involved and the conse-quent seriousness of it. Only in this way can your commandermake his decision based on a knowledge as completely as

you, his judge advocate, can make it. Of course, if you deter-mine that the action proposed is illegal or undesirable thisshould be pointed out and the reasons enumerated, but moreimportant should be an effort on your part to discover a legaland proper way of securing the desired results.

You have undoubtedly found out by this time that on manyoccasions your personal feelings with respect to a particularproblem or case are quite definite. Regardless of the way youfeel about any particular case you are handling, you must atall times maintain a judicial temperament and complete objec-tivity in formulating your opinions and recommendations. Youshould evaluate every situation presented to you in a com-pletely objective manner. Once you start taking sides from apersonal standpoint you become an advocate -- not a judgeadvocate. It is difficult, of course, to maintain this objectiveattitude, but you should never act otherwise.

An important asset of a good judge advocate is anintellectual curiosity. A good judge advocate is never

satisfied with his opinion until he has completely researchedevery facet and ramification of the problem at hand. Once youstart taking things for granted and think you know the answerto the problem presented to you, that’s the time you really getinto trouble. Don’t hesitate to ask for the advice and opinionof others. The most learned individual cannot possibly haveall the answers. Your colleagues on the staff have their ownspecialized knowledge in their own respective professionalfield. When you learn about the functions and responsibili-ties of other staff sections, their problems and the tools theyhave available to solve them, you will do much to gain theirconfidence.

To achieve professional attainment it is necessary to befirm in your opinion. Don’t hedge or be wishy-washy. For thepurposes of argument only there are two sides to every ques-tion — the right and the wrong side. But as far as you areconcerned, when expressing an opinion, to your commander,after consideration of all phases of the problem, there is onlyone side and that is the correct one. Don’t leave your com-mander to make a decision between two points. That’s thereason you’re on his staff. If your recommendation is notacted upon, you still have given the person responsible formaking a decision the benefit of your advice. You shouldalways have the courage of your convictions. However, don’tconfuse courage of convictions with hard-headedness or stub-bornness. None of us is infallible; if you are shown to bewrong, have the good graces to accept your error. Other mem-bers of your staff and the commander will have much morerespect for you.

An important attribute of a good judge advocate isaccuracy. Curbstone, off-the-cuff, or horseback opin-

ions, can be and have been the downfall of many a judgeadvocate — and rightly so. If someone believes a problem tobe of sufficient importance to request your opinion and if youare professionally and intellectually honest, you will not abuseyour profession or office by rendering them a curbstone opin-ion. You are not supposed to be an encyclopedia of the law;


the tools of your trade are your books — use them! Form ahabit of being thorough in your research of all legal ques-tions. A legal opinion directly contrary to an existing law ordirective reflects adversely on a judge advocate. Do not relyon memory — check statutory provisions or the regulationinvolved or determine if there is such a statute or directive.And by all means, re-read your work — revise it and correct it,if necessary, before you send it out. Your associates will havemore respect for you if they are convinced that their problemsare being answered after mature reflection, deliberation andthorough research on your part.

In addition to accuracy and good judgment, sentence struc-ture and grammatical correctness are important. A writtencomment or document is a fairly accurate reflection of theindividual responsible for its preparation. If your legal opin-ion is not readily understood by the person or agency to whomit is addressed, you’ve wasted your time and theirs. If it isconfusing because of sentence structure, incorrect grammar,or vague, one can only assume that the responsible individualdoes not know any better or does not care. In either case, thelogical conclusion may be that the individual is not qualifiedto perform the duty to which he is assigned. Say exactly whatyou mean — no more, no less. Answer only the questionspresented. Do not generalize. Remember that, except in mili-tary justice, you are writing for laymen, not lawyers. Avoidlegal phraseology — use simple language that anyone canunderstand. A good means of testing the clarity of your opin-ion is to let a lay member of your office read it before it isdispatched. If you generalize an opinion you will find it willcome back to haunt you. Persons not trained in the law will

attempt to apply it to situations or facts which are not exactlyas they were initially represented to you. If the problem pre-sents a question which you do not discuss or answer, point itout. For instance, if the problem requires information on aquestion which should be properly answered by another staffagency, put a statement in your opinion that it does not in-clude an answer to that question. But recommend that it bereferred to the agency concerned for expert advice. Or betterstill, try to obtain the answer yourself and include it in youropinion. But state the source and authority for it.

A judge advocate should be proud of his work. Ifyou can be proud of a legal opinion, it means that it is

legally sound, it is mechanically accurate, it is thorough andcompletely answers the questions asked, it is grammaticallycorrect, it is logical, it is not subject to more than one logicalinterpretation, it is not confusing to persons without a legaleducation, and, lastly, it not only sounds convincing and au-thoritative, but it is convincing and authoritative.

Finally, as judge advocates each of us must strivefor professional attainment both as an officer and

as a lawyer. With the interest of the Air Force prominentlyin mind we must endeavor to possess greater responsibility toour commander, professional competence, thoroughness inadvice and counsel and a more solicitous and considerateattitude toward all seeking legal or related service.

the reporter - Air Force JAG Corps

Documents

Transcript of the reporter - Air Force JAG Corps