defense was waived. It was not waived in this case. There is a strong policy of law against invoking a waiver of the statute of limitations fully applicable to a proceeding under UCMJ, Art 15, where there is a non-judicial award of punishment. Justice requires that the party be permitted on appeal to interpose the statute for the first time as a bar to punishment, unless it appears that he had an opportunity to assert the defense earlier and intentionally waived it. (See MCM, 1951, pars 68c, 53h, 74h.)

Held also: The appellant has no standing to press his other contentions. He does not contest the testimony but solely its implications and it must be recognized that a Court of Inquiry is principally a fact finding body whose conclusions are merely advisory and that any action taken by the convening authority is taken in his administrative capacity. (Citing sec 0301a, CG Supp, MCM, 1951.) Op CCCG 1953/14. 28 October 1953.

§ 7.3. Notice to accused.

§ 7. Procedure

An airman (a technical sergeant) who was away at school was notified by his squadron commanding officer of the latter's intention to impose punishment on the airman pursuant to UCMJ, Art 15. The airman acknowledged receipt of the notice. However, it appeared that although the squadron commander recommended the airman be reduced to the next inferior grade, the commandant of the school which the airman was attending actually promulgated the orders reducing the airman from technical sergeant to staff sergeant. Held: The commanding officer otherwise qualified under Article 15 to reduce an airman, lacks jurisdiction to do so unless he notifies the airman of his intention to impose punishment or unless the airman has been notified by a subordinate commander of his intention to recommend non-judicial punishment to such commanding officer (Op JAGAF 1952/88, 2 Dig Ops No. 1, NON-JUD PUN § 7.3; pars 129, 133a, MCM, 1951; par 3, AFR 111-9, 17 Sep 1951). As neither procedure was followed in the instant case, the purported reduction was void ab initio. Op JAGAF 1953/18. 18 May 1953.

§ 11. Punishment

§ 11.7. Reduction in grade.

Change 2, SR 615-25-55, 6 October 1952, which concerns reduction in grade for inefficiency, does not authorize a company commander to reduce an enlisted man from grade E-2 to E-1 for misconduct under UCMJ, Art 15, and MCM, 1951, par 131. Non-judicial punishment is intended only for misconduct, and while it can be argued that misconduct can amount to inefficiency, the reverse proposition is not normally true. JAGJ 1952/9405. 18 December

1952.

Three enlisted men were reduced in rating under the ostensible authority of UCMJ, Art 15. The reductions, however, were to be suspended after short periods of time. Held: The authority to reduce in rating does not comprehend, nor include, the power to impose a

temporary reduction in grade. Since the form of punishment employed herein discloses the apparent intention of the commanding officer to inflict merely a temporary loss of rank, the attempted actions are unauthorized. Further, conceding arguendo, the legality of the imposition of a temporary reduction in grade, the action of the commanding officer contemplates an indefinite suspension of the punishment. The use of indefinite suspension with respect to court-martial is prohibited by sec 0109, Naval Supplement to the Manual for Courts-Martial, 1951, and the same limitation is logically applicable to non-judicial punishment.

Held also: The action of the commanding officer restoring each of the men to his former rate was illegal since it attempted to remit conditionally an executed punishment. The power to remit, or suspend, applies only to unexecuted portions of a punishment, whereas, the power to set aside is applicable both to executed and unexecuted punishments. Since a reduction in rating is executed when the change in rate is effected, the powers of suspension and remission are not applicable. However, where the executed punishment has resulted in an injustice, the power to set aside the punishment completely may be invoked. Such action, of necessity, must be accompanied by a restoration of all rights, privileges and property affected by the punishment so set aside. Since it appears that it was the intention of the commanding officer to impose no more than a temporary reduction in rate, and a removal of the temporary character of the reduction would increase the severity of the punishments originally intended, an injustice would result if the men are continued in the reduced ratings. This injustice can be remedied by setting aside the punishments and restoring all rights, privileges and property affected pursuant to the authority of UCMJ, Art 15(d). The provisions of Art C-7212(1), BuPers Manual, providing that personnel who have been reduced in rating are required to fulfill the service and other requirements for readvancement does not restrict or limit the authority vested by UCMJ, Art 15(d). The cited provision of the BuPers Manual regulates the normal eligibility for readvancement in rate following reduction pursuant to non-judicial punishment or sentence of court-martial and is applicable where no action under UCMJ, Art 15(d), has been taken. Op JAGN 1954/195. 9 February 1954.

§ 11.9. Admonition or reprimand.

An investigation of engineering deficiencies on board a naval vessel was ordered, and the investigating board recommended that administrative letters of censure be issued to the commanding officer and the engineering officer of the vessel. Neither the ordering authority nor the investigating board designated these officers as parties, nor were these officers accorded the full rights of parties to the investigation. There was no indication in the record that the record of proceedings was referred to them for statement. The ordering authority stated that "appropriate disciplinary action" was initiated in the cases of the officers but there was no indication of the nature of the proposed disciplinary action. Held: Letters of censure may be issued

in any one of three degrees of severity, of which a letter of reprimand is the most severe, a letter of admonition is of lesser severity, and a letter of caution is of still lesser severity (SecNav ltr Pers B12g-df, P13- 4, 20 September 1951; N. D. Bull. of 30 September 1951). Commanding officers are empowered to issue two types of letters of censure, punitive letters and administrative letters; the authority to issue the former is found in UCMJ, Art 15, and the authority to issue the latter is par 128c, MCM, 1951. Administrative letters of censure are issued for corrective purposes, to further the efficiency of the command, and not as a penalty; they are not to be made a part of or filed in the addressee's official record. On the other hand, punitive letters of censure, as authorized by UCMJ, Art 15, are issued for disciplinary purposes and are made a part of and filed in the addressee's official record. A punitive letter of censure may be issued only after the addressee has been informed in writing of the projected action and the facts upon which it will be based and given an opportunity to submit a written statement within a stipulated reasonable time setting forth any cause why the projected action should not be taken. Any such statement submitted by the proposed addressee shall be considered prior to addressing any punitive letter of censure to him. This action is not required when the letter is issued: on the basis of a naval aviator disposition board proceeding wherein the aviator has submitted a statement or has been permitted to appear in person before the board; pursuant to a sentence of a general court martial or a special court martial; on the basis of information developed by an investigation or a court of inquiry, provided the addressee was accorded all the rights of a party or the record of proceedings was referred to him for statement. (SecNav ltr of 20 September 1951, supra). In the instant case, if the proposed disciplinary action includes the issuance of one or more punitive letters of censure, the procedure outlined above should be followed or the letter or letters will be illegal. If merely an administrative letter of censure is issued, no copy thereof should be placed in the addressee's official file. In no event may a greater value be found based upon the possible personal knowledge of the members of the court (ACM 275, Kline (BR), 1 CMR (AF) 166, 167; CM 324747, Van Dyne, et al, 73 BR 354; CM 334541, Woods, 1 BR-JC 187, 189). In this case while there is not adequate proof to support a finding of specific values, there is adequate proof from which the court could properly find some value not in excess of $20 (ACM S-4173, Young, supra; ACM S-5542, Harris, supra; CM 360726, Hardison, 9 CMR 335). Op JAGN 1952/144. 13 October 1952.

OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS

§ 1. In General

The offices of The Inspector General, The Provost Marshal General, Vice Chiefs of Staff, Deputy Chiefs of Staff, and Assistant Chiefs of Staff, Deputy and Assistant Chiefs of Service, Chief and Assistant Chiefs of the Medical Service Corps, Director and Deputy Director of the Women's Army Corps, Chief of the Army Nurse Corps, and Chief and Assistant Chiefs of the Women's Medical Specialist Corps, are statutory offices, so that the holders thereof are executive officers of the United States required by the Constitution to be bound by oath or affirmation of office. (Citing SPJGA 1943/6745, 6 May 1943; JAGA 1951/5202, 24 August 1951.) JAGA 1953/1462. 16 February 1953.

See also OFFICERS 15.3.

§ 7.1. Generally.

§ 7. Form and Sufficiency

The accused was found guilty of subscribing under oath a statement which he did not believe to be true. The evidence established that the accused dictated the statement in question after being read Art 31 by an officer. After the statement was typed, the officer again read Art 31 to the accused, explained it to him, told him he was signing a sworn affidavit and told him to read over the statement and if it was correct to sign it. He admitted that he did not administer a "handraising" oath as such, but testified that the accused said the statement was true and signed it. Held: Although no “handraising" type of oath was administered, the actions of the accused and the officer constituted the administration of an oath to the accused, and, accordingly, the statement was made under oath. (Citing MCM, 1951, par 112d; 67 CJS, Oaths and Affirmations, sec 6, p 8; Atwood v. State, 146 Miss 662, 11 So 865; Cox v. State, 164 Ark 126, 261 SW 303; Mitchell v. Masury, 132 Ga 360, 64 SE 275; CM 227364, Becker, 15 BR 273.)

Held also: Although the actions of the accused and the officer resulted in an oath being administered, this decision is not an approval of the officer's method of administering an oath. Oaths should be administered with formality befitting the occasion. At the time an oath is administered the affiant and person administering the oath should be in each other's immediate presence. One of the customary procedures set out in par 112d, MCM, 1951, p 184, should be followed in administering the oath. The Manual does not contain an explicit form of oath for use in connection with statements of witnesses other than witnesses in an Art 32 investigation. However, the form of oath prescribed for such witnesses may and should be utilized if no other form has been prescribed. ACM 8426, Reardon (1954) 15 CMR 894.

[Form and sufficiency of oath generally, see 39 Am Jur, Oath and Affirmation $§ 13-16.]

I. IN GENERAL.

OFFICERS

§ 5. Rank and Precedence.

§ 6. - Service Credit.

II. APPOINTMENT.

A. IN GENERAL.

§ 15. Generally.

§ 21. Eligibility and Qualifications.

§ 24. Determination of Grade.

B. PARTICULAR BRANCHES, BUREAUS, CORPS, AND
DEPARTMENTS.

§ 29. In Army.

III. PROMOTIONS.

A. IN GENERAL.

§ 77. Temporary Promotions, Generally.

§ 79. Eligibility, Generally.

§ 87. Service Credit.

§ 91. Failure of Promotion; Deferred Officers.

IV. DEMOTION, TERMINATION OF COMMISSION, AND SEPARATION FROM SERVICE.

§ 141. In General.

§ 147. Discharge, Dismissal, and Elimination from Active List.

§ 153. Boards.

§ 159. Correction, Review, Reconsideration.

§ 5.1. Generally.

I. IN GENERAL

§ 5. Rank and Precedence

The date of rank and position on the promotion list in the case of appointments under sec 506, Officer Personnel Act of 1947, 61 Stat 890, 10 USC 560, ML 1949, sec 118b, should be established from the date the appointment is consummated (i.e., the date of acceptance by the individual of the tendered appointment, following nomination by the President, confirmation by the Senate, and tender of appointment to the individual), adjusted, where appropriate, to reflect such service, actual or constructive, as may be credited under the provisions of subsec 506 (c), Officer Personnel Act, supra. The "date of nomination" as used in connection with the appointment of additional Regular Army officers under sec 506, supra, refers to the date the President submits to the Senate the name of the individual he desires to appoint. But for the purpose of appointments made under sec 506, supra, the term "date of appointment" refers to the date upon which the last of the appointive acts has been completed, it being the date the appointment becomes consummated by acceptance by the individual. JAGA 1953/1593. 12 Feb 1953.

The subject officer, upon being appointed to commissioned rank