UNITED STATES, Appellee v HARVEY D. HOWLAND, Jr., Electronics Technician Third Class, U. S. Navy, Appellant

UNITED STATES, Appellee v HARVEY D. HOWLAND, Jr., Electronics Technician Third Class, U. S. Navy, Appellant 10 USCMA 659, 28 CMR 225 No. 13,309 Decided September 30, 1959 Lieutenant (jg) Martin Drobac, USNR, was on the brief for Appellant, Accused. Lieutenant Colonel J. E. Stauffer, USMC, was on the brief for Appellee, United States. [MAJORITY — ROBERT E. Quinn, Chief Judge:] Opinion of the Court ROBERT E. Quinn, Chief Judge: The decision of the board of review is reversed and the action of the supervisory authority is set aside. United States v Bennie, 10 USCMA 159, 27 CMR 233. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy for reference to a competent supervisory authority for further proceedings under Articles 61, 64 and 65, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 861, 864 and 865. Judge FERGUSON concurs. [DISSENT — LATIMER, Judge] LATIMER, Judge (dissenting) : I dissent. After summarizing the evidence presented by both parties, the staff legal officer, in his post-trial review, advised the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction, inter alia, that in his opinion the competent evidence of record established beyond a reasonable doubt accused’s guilt of the larceny for which he was convicted, and that the findings were correct in law and fact. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinions in United States v Bennie, 10 USCMA 159, 27 CMR 233; and United States v Clark, 10 USCMA 614, 28 CMR 180, I conclude that the post-trial advice in the case at bar meets the requirements of the Code and the Manual. I must, therefore, disagree with the disposition ordered by the majority. I would affirm the decision of the board of review.