« 上一頁繼續 »
Army, and to perform such other duties
The activities of inspectors general include:
1. An annual inspection of the United States Soldiers' Home, Washington, D. C.
and the United States Military Academy, West Point, New York.
2. Periodic inspections of commands, installations, and activities of the Army; records of accountable disbursing officers and class B agent officers; Army units and activities of the National Guard of the United States; accounts and records of United States property and finance officers; and appropriate elements of other civilian components of the Army.
3. Action to insure that all Army personnel
under their inspectional jurisdiction, especially those in confinement, are given the opportunity to present, orally or in writing, their individual grievances to an inspector general, not less frequently than once in each quarter of a fiscal year; and that each such complainant is advised, orally or in writing, of the final action taken on his or her complaint or grievance.
4. Investigation of complaints and allegations concerning individuals, and of conditions detrimental to the service.
5. Such other investigations, surveys, studies, and special inspections as may be appropriate or as may be directed by higher authority.
PROCUREMENT OF OFFICERS. To be detailed as an inspector general, an Army officer must be mature; must have broad experience and Army background; must have a record of past performance of “average" or above; must have the moral attributes and personal traits needed for a position of dignity and prestige; and must be in the grade of major or higher.
INSPECTORS GENERAL. The following have served as Inspector General of the Army or equivalent8 Jul 1777-11 Oct 1777
Col. Mottin De La Balme 11 Aug 1777—15 Sep 1777
..Maj. Gen. P. C. J. B. T. DuCoudray 13 Dec 1777–28 Apr 1778
.Maj. Gen. Thomas Conway 5 May 1778-15 Apr 1784 .
.Maj. Gen. (Baron) F. W. A. von Steuben 17 Apr 1784-28 Oct 1787
.Maj. William North 10 Mar 1792-23 Feb 1793
Lt. Henry DeButts 23 Feb 1793—17 Jul 1793
.Maj. Michael Rudolph 18 Jul 1793—13 May 1794
Capt. Edward Butler 13 May 1794—27 Feb 1796
..Maj. John Mills 27 Feb 1796_1 Aug 1796
Maj. Jonathan Haskell 1 Aug 1796–27 Feb 1797
Capt. Edward Butler 27 Feb 1797-18 Jul 1798
.Maj. Thomas H. Cushing 18 Jul 1798-15 Jun 1800
Maj. Gen. Alexander Hamilton 15 Jun 1800—2 Apr 1807
.Maj. Thomas H. Cushing 2 Apr 1807–28 Apr 1812
.Maj. Abimael Y. Nicoll 6 Jul 1812–3 Mar 1813
.Brig. Gen. Alexander Smyth 12 Mar 1813—27 Apr 1813
Brig. Gen. Zebulon M. Pike 9 May 1814-2 Jul 1814
.Brig. Gen. William H. Winder 22 NOV 1813-1 Jun 1821
.Brig. Gen. Daniel Parker 1 Jun 1821-25 Jun 1841
Col. John E. Wood 25 Jun 1841-8 Jan 1849
Col. George Croghan 9 Jan 1849—8 Aug 1861
Col. Sylvester Churchill 9 Aug 1861-1 Jan 1881
Brig. Gen. Randolph B. Marcy 2 Jan 1881-8 Mar 1885
.Brig. Gen. Delos B. Sacket 11 Mar 1885—20 Sep 1885
Brig. Gen. Nelson H. Davis
21 Sep 1885—20 Aug 1888
Brig. Gen. Absalom Baird
.Brig. Gen. Roger Jones .Brig. Gen. Joseph C. Breckinridge
.Brig. Gen. Peter D. Vroom
.Brig. Gen. George H. Burton Brig. Gen. Ernest A. Garlington .Maj. Gen. John L. Chamberlain
.Maj. Gen. Ell A. Helmick .Maj. Gen. William C. Rivers
Maj. Gen. Hugh A. Drum .Maj. Gen. John F. Preston
.Maj. Gen. Walter L. Reed .Maj. Gen. Virgil L. Peterson
Lt. Gen. Dan I. Sultan .Maj. Gen. Ira T. Wyche Maj. Gen. Louis A. Craig
..Lt. Gen. Daniel Noce .Maj. Gen. Wayne C. Zimmerman
Lt. Gen. David A. D. Ogden
.Maj. Gen. Albert Plerson
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S CORPS The Judge Advocate General is the spect to rank and pay, but most of legal adviser of the Secretary of the them retained commissions in regiArmy and of all officers and agencies ments of the line. Records of trial by of the Department of the Army. He general courts-martial, which were reis responsible for general supervision quired to be preserved by the Secreof the system of military justice through- tary of War, were actually reviewed, out the Army; for administration of prior to being filed, by The Adjutant the system of statutory appellate re- General, who performed some of the view of all records of trial by general present-day functions of a Judge Adcourts-martial; for the assignment of vocate General with respect to revision trained legal officers (judge advocates) of such records for clerical and proto all principal Army commands; and cedural errors, and in some cases with for the rendering of miscellaneous legal respect to the legality of the punishopinions, in all fields of the law, to ment imposed. the Secretary of the Army and the In 1849 Congress created the office of military establishment.
Judge Advocate of the Army. BeginHISTORICAL BACKGROUND. The ning at that time there seems to have office of Judge Advocate of the Army been a complete revision in the concept may be deemed to have been created and functions of the office. Although on 29 July 1775, when the Continental such duties were not prescribed by Congress named William Tudor of statute, the Judge Advocate concerned Boston to this position. The appoint- himself with the review of general ment was made less than a month after court-martial records, and also rendthe adoption of the first American ered legal opinio on miscellaneous Articles of War, and it heralded the subjects to the Secretary of War. Proseuse of professional legal talent by the cutions of general court-martial cases Army. This does not mean, however, continued to be conducted by officers that a JAG's Corps as we know it to- detailed as “judge advocates” by comday has been continuously in existence manders empowered to appoint such since that time. On the contrary, no courts. Thus, for the first time, there such Corps
created until 1862. was a distinction between personnel of Until 1849 the terms "Judge Advocate the “office" of the Judge Advocate of General," "judge advocate” and “Judge the Army, who were responsible to Marshall and Advocate General” were that officer for the performance of their used interchangeably as referring to duties, and judge advocates of general the title of an office, the chief function courts-martial, who were responsible, of which was to prosecute, and to per- as they are today, to the commanders form certain other duties at trials appointing them. Also, for the first by general courts-martial. Some officers time, the office of the Judge Advocate performing these functions were given of the Army began to exercise some a special status by Congress with re- influence on the overall operation of
the system of military justice, through the review of general court-martial records.
The Department actually came into its own in 1862, when Congress created the office of Judge Advocate General, established a corps of judge advocates, and provided that the records of proceedings of all courts-martial and military commissions should be forwarded to the office of The Judge Advocate General for revision. In 1864 the Bureau of Military Justice, to which The Judge Advocate General and his functions were transferred, was established. Despite the large number of troops which served in the Union Army, and the large number of death sentences (267, as opposed to 141 in World War II) which were carried into execution after having been adjudged by general courts-martial or military commissions, only 33 judge advocates were required to handle the work of the office during the war. It should be noted that the automatic appellate review system provided for in the modern system of American military justice was not then in existence.
In 1884 the Bureau of Military Justice and the corps of judge advocates were merged by statute into the newly created Judge Advocate General's Department. The war with Spain heralded the first legislation providing judge advocates for field commanders (Army Corps). In 1901 the Department was reorganized. When we entered World War I, it consisted of 17 officers; by December of 1918 it had expanded to 426 officers. The increase was accelerated by widespread criticism of the operation of military justice during the war; especially of the fact that it was almost wholly under the control of line officers without legal training.
No history of the Department in the nineteenth century is complete without mention of the splendid work of Colonel William Winthrop of New York, who entered the Department as a major in September 1864 after creditable service in the line. In 1886 he published the first edition of his monumental and scholarly treatise, “Military Law and Precedents," and in 1895 a revised and annotated second edition. Although more than a half century has passed since
this treatise was first published, it is still a most valuable authority on the subject.
The sweeping changes made in 1920 in our system of military justice further enhanced the responsibilities of The Judge Advocate General. An automatic appellate review system and other safeguards were established, tending to place the processing and review of all courts-martial under his advisory supervision, or that of an officer of his Department.
World War II witnessed an unprecedented expansion in the Department, from 105 officers (on duty in 1940) to more than 2,300. After the war it was of course reduced; at the end of 1948 its active duty strength was 542. With the outbreak of hostilities in Korea, expansion was again necessary, and, primarily by the recall of reserve JA officers, strength was increased to a peak of 1,247 by the end of 1953. As of the beginning of fiscal year 1958, the Judge Advocate General's Corps (as it is called)
authorized strength of 1,029.
THE CORPS TODAY. The coming into effect of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in 1951 placed the Corps on its present footing, and also tended to bring about a uniform administration of military justice in the three Armed Services. It likewise established further safeguards for persons tried under military law.
Army, corps, and division staffs, the staffs of such other commanders as may be announced from time to time by the Department of the Army, and most installation staffs, include one or more officers of the Judge Advocate General's Corps. The senior judge advocate of such a command is the legal adviser of the commanding officer thereof, and as to that command he performs duties somewhat similar, in general nature and scope, to those discharged by The Judge Advocate General with relation to the whole military establishment.
Although the Corps' functions relate principally to legal questions arising in the Army, its advisory capacity on frequent occasions requires collaboration with various other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Justice, the
Department of State, and the Comptroller General's Office, on matters of a dual capacity affecting governmental interest.
For further details on Military Law see chapter 17.
TRAINING OF JAG PERSONNEL. Just before and during World War II there was difficulty in obtaining enough qualified officers for the JAG's Department. Some were provided by the Officers Reserve Corps and the National Guard; and efforts were made in 1942 to get others from civil life, or from among enlisted men with legal backgrounds. These methods proving inadequate, a Judge Advocate General's Officer Candidate School was activated in March of 1943. From that date until 26 February 1946, a total of 891 candidates were graduated from the school and entered the service as judge advocates. In addition, 1,097 officers attended the judge advocate's refresher course, and 486 officers attended the contracttermination course, both offered at the Judge Advocate General's School.
The present Judge Advocate General's School, located at the University of
Virginia, was established in 1951, and was responsible for the training of a great number of new or recalled officers during the Korean conflict. This school, truly an institute of higher legal education, is accredited by the American Bar Association.
PROCUREMENT OF PERSONNEL, The procurement of sufficient judge advocates to carry out effectively the missions imposed by law is a continuing problem facing The Judge Advocate General. Available sources of procurement are: recall to extended active duty of reserve judge advocates in the lowest commissioned rank of first lieutenant; appointment of graduates of approved law schools who are members of the bar of the highest court of their state or a Federal Court; and transfer of qualified officers from other arms or services. As an indication of the magnitude and difficulties of the personnel procurement program, at the beginning of fiscal year 1958, there were 158 of the Corps' authorized 645 Regular Army spaces still unfilled after a continuing and energetic recruitment program.
JUDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL OF THE ARMY. The following have served as such or in an equivalent position29 Jul 1775—9 Apr 1777
.Col. William Tudor 10 Apr 1777–3 Jun 1782
Col. John Lawrence 2 Oct 1782–3 Nov 1783
Col. Thomas Edwards 16 Jul 1794—1 Jun 1802
.Capt. Campbell Smith 2 Mar 1849-3 Sep 1862
. Brevet Maj. John F. Lee 3 Sep 1862-1 Dec 1875
.Brevet Maj. Gen. Joseph Holt 1 Dec 1875—22 Jan 1881
.Brig. Gen. William M. Dunn 18 Feb 1881-22 Dec 1894
.Brig. Gen. David G. Swaim 3 Jan 1895—21 May 1901
.Brig. Gen. G. Norman Lieber 21 May 1901-22 May 1901
.Brig. Gen. Thomas F. Barr 22 May 1901-24 May 1901
Brig. Gen. John W. Clous 24 May 1901—14 Feb 1911
.Maj. Gen. George B. Davis 15 Feb 1911-14 Feb 1923
.Maj. Gen. Enoch H. Crowder 15 Feb 1923-15 Nov 1924
.Maj. Gen. Walter A. Bethel 16 Nov 1924 15 Nov 1928
.Maj. Gen. John A. Hull 16 Nov 1928-28 Feb 1931
.Maj. Gen. Edward A. Kreger 1 Mar 1931-30 Nov 1933
.Maj. Gen. Blanton Winship 1 Dec 1933–30 Nov 1937
.Maj. Gen. Arthur W. Brown 1 Dec 1937–30 Nov 1941
.Maj. Gen. Allen W. Gullion 1 Dec 1941-30 Nov 1945
.Maj. Gen. Myron C. Cramer 1 Dec 194530 Nov 1949
.Maj. Gen. Thomas H. Green 3 Jan 1950—26 Jan 1954
Maj. Gen. Ernest M. Brannon 27 Jan 195430 Dec 1956
.Maj. Gen. Eugene M. Caffey 1 Jan 1957
.Maj. Gen. George W. Hickman, Jr.
ORGANIZATION AND STRENGTH OF THE ARMY
By “organization" of the Army is grouped together to form larger balmeant the manner in which personnel anced combat units, each containing and units of the various combat arms units or personnel from a number of and services, and their supporting and different arms or services. Such large overhead agencies, are fitted together units must receive service support, not to make a complete machine, ready to only from their own service personnel keep the peace and to fight at a mo- but from other service establishments ment's notice if we are attacked. behind them. All the foregoing must in
Beginning at the bottom, we have turn be grouped, in peace and war, into small troop units or detachments, each territorial commands; and over all of consisting wholly or primarily of one them is the Department of the Army. particular arm or service. These are
TROOP UNITS OF THE ARMS AND SERVICES The complexity of modern war re- service, etc., to which the unit perquires many specialized units at the tains, and the second identifies the lower levels (company or equivalent, unit. Thus, the TOE's of all infantry battalion, and regiment or equivalent). units have the initial number 7-; TOE At the present moment the Army has 7-17 deals with the infantry rifle com521 different kinds of such units. Of pany. these, 167 pertain to the combat arms; This does not exhaust the list of 312 pertain to the services; the remain- lower-level Army units. The table being 42 pertain to other activities such low shows certain entities, usually as security, intelligence, military gov- called “service organizations," which ernment, etc.
can be identified by the fact that their Each such organized troop unit has TOE numbers end in -500 (for example, a specified number of officers and men TOE 8-500, the Medical Service Organof various grades and skills; specified ization). Such entity is not an equipment, including weapons, tools, "organization" in the usual sense of the machines
and mechanical devices, word, but merely a category, comprehousekeeping equipment, transporta- hending a number of small "cellular" tion, and so on; and specified assign- units, in general independent of each ments and duties. For each unit there other, usually called “teams.” Generally is published a “Table of Organization speaking, a team differs from the ordiand Equipment" (often abbreviated nary type of troop unit in that the latter TOE) giving full data on personnel, is more or less self-sufficient from an equipment, etc. Every TOE is desig- administrative and housekeeping viewnated by a hyphenated number, of point. A team, on the other hand, conwhich the first part designates the arm, sists wholly or chiefly of specialists in
1 The progressive reorganization of the Army, needed to keep it in step with the development of now weapons and techniques, has resulted and will result in continuing changes in lower-level troop units. The data given below are correct as of the date when this book goes to press,