These

In this regard, I should note here that we are continuing to experience a steadily increasing caseload. Most of the Court's cas es come up on direct appeal from the Courts of Military Review of the various Armed Services. intermediate appellate courts have similarly been experiencing substantial increases in caseload in the recent past. For example, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review experienced in Fiscal Year 1981 an increase of approximately 50% in the number of court-martial cases submitted for appellate review over the caseload filings in that court during the prior fiscal year. Similarly, although not to such a drastic extent, the Army Court of Military Review had an increase of approximately 14% in caseload filings during the same comparative fiscal year periods. The Air Force Court of Military Review likewise experienced an 11% increase in caseload filings during the same timeframe. During Fiscal Year 1981, ou r Court's overall case filings have increased 24% over the number of case filings for the prior fiscal year. As in the past, we expect that during Fiscal Year 1982 and Fiscal Year 1983 we will continue to receive at least some portion of the increasing numbers of cases being reviewed at the intermediate appellate court level.

growing

is the

be ca me

a

One of the reasons why the Court has been able to handle the constantly rate of caseload filings without significant personnel increases integrated word processing and data processing computer system which fully operational last year. Several months ago our Docket Room accomplished complete transition from manual docketing procedures to a completely automated docketing system. Instead of seeking information in indi vi dual docket books, our staff now can obtain it at computer terminals located in work areas throughout our Courthouse. The greater accessibility of information provides time savings which translate into cost savings, since additional dock et room personnel need not be hired and additional space for court records is not needed. Since the automated system requires a single disc pack costing about $500.00 in order to retain and store the caseload data for a 3-year period, a tangible 3-year cost savings of $14,000.00 should be realized by eliminating the purchase of six (6) dockets books each year, at a present cost of $800.00 per book. Furthermore, automation of caseflow data enables the Court to manage its docket more efficiently and may permit us to identify important trends that otherwise would go unnoticed.

-

One of the continuing responsibilities of the members of the Court is to travel to various local military communities throughout the world. We have viewed this responsibility as a necessary means of developing a better appreciation of some of the operational problems in the various Armed Services problems which must be taken into account if the Court is to be judicially responsive to the needs of the military community in administering the military justice system. For example, in the spring of 1981, I visited the Military Academy at West Point, New York; the Air Force Academy and Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado; Fort Sam Houston, Texas; Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; and the Langley Air Force Base, Virginia. That fall I traveled to the Army JAG School at Charlottesvlle, Virginia, and to Homestead Air Force Base, Florida; and just recently, I visited Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Judge Cook visited Fort Sam Houston, Texas, and Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, in early 1981, and Fort Lewis, Washington, and Fort Sill, Oklahoma, during the summer of 1981. Judge Fletcher visited several military installations in the Far East in the spring of 1981.

In addition to these visits, the members of the Court consider it important to participate in conferences, seminars, and similar projects to improve the professional legal education of military lawyers and to make service personnel and the general public aware of the safeguards provided by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Court's decisions interpreting the Code.

is

Another responsibility which the members of the Court view quite seriously imposed under Article 67(g) of the Code, which directs that the Judges of the Court, along with the Judge Advocates General, meet annually to inform the Congress of the status of military justice and to make recommendations relating to amendments to the Code. In this regard, I might note that all of the Judges of the Court meet more frequently than annually with the Judge Advocates General to fulfill this codal responsibility. As a result of such meetings, the Court's members appeared before a subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee in October of last year in support of certain amendments to the Code, which were subsequently enacted into law. We have more re cent ly met with the Judge Advocates General to review a series of proposed amendments to the which

Code

the Department of Defense plans to forward to the Congress for the improve ment of the military justice system. Of course, our visits to military installations help us become aware of specific needs which should be met by legislation to be proposed to Congress under Article 67(g).

In last year's presentation of the Court's Appropriation Request I made reference to a major task of eliminating a case backlog which resulted from a prior seven month period during which there were only two Judges on the Court. The substantial accomplishment of this task is reflected in the fact that the Court's issuance of full written opinions, as opposed to a brief summa ry disposition by order, has increased by 65% during Fiscal Year 1981 as compare d with the number of opinions issued during the prior fiscal year. This percentage figure climbs to 82% when the more current calendar years of 1980 and 1981 are compared. In addition, the history of our most re cent ly disposed of cases shows that a number of the Court's opinions were issued within 12 week s after oral argument was heard. Although we have experienced a 24% increase in caseload filings during Fiscal Year 1981, we have been able, by using our integrated word processing and data processing computer system to its ma xi mum potential, to avoid personnel increases in our effort to substantially re du ce an existing backlog of undecided cases.

I again wish to express my appreciation for this opportunity to present the Court's Appropriation Request; and I am hopeful that my comments have provide d you some insight into the problems facing the Court. I have also provided for your information the Court's Fiscal Year 1981 statistics, which should be instructive as to the progress which we have achieved. I shall be pleased to answer any other questions the Committee might have.

CLAIMS, DEFENSE

PREPARED STATEMENT OF L. PAUL DUBE

DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS

OFFICE OF DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (PROGRAM/BUDGET) OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your Committee today to discuss the estimated fiscal year 1983 requirements for the appropriation "Claims Defense." This appropriation, as prescribed by law, provides the funds required for payments of noncontractual claims against the Department of Defense.

For fiscal year 1983 we are estimating a requirement of $172.5 million. The Congress appropriated $155.7 million for FY 1982. Congressional reductions in FY 1980, FY 1981 and FY 1982 have restricted our ability to fully fund our requirements in a timely manner. The continued rapid growth in both the cost and number of claims makes it essential that our current FY 1983 request be approved.

As you are aware, Claims, Defense is largely an uncontrollable appropriation and it is very difficult to develop precise estimates. Estimates are based on historical trends. The majority of the claims are personnel claims which arise from the loss or damage of personnel property of military employees during shipment, or from acts of nature. Others include tort claims which arise from personal injury or personel property damage caused by negligence of an employee of Don while acting in the scope of his or her employment. Maneuver damage claims are included in this tort claims category. Reimbursements made in a particular year do not equate precisely to the damages caused in that year. There is a time lag between the cause of the damage and the filing, adjudication and settlement of the claim arising from it. For NATO SOFA claims, there is a further link in the chain. The foreign government agency which has processed and paid a claim submits a reimbursement request to the U.S. Army Claims Service, Europe which then reimburses to the foreign government, the United States share of the costs under Article VIII of the NATO SOFA. Therefore, claims can be neither programed in advance nor precisely controlled from year to year. They are adjudicated by properly constituted review authorities and to the extent they are determined payable, they legally must be paid.

While we can defer nominal amounts of claims from one year to another in order to keep within our obligational authority, it is clear that we are merely pushing our financial problems forward from year to year. Further, it is only equitable that we pay the claim as promptly as possible once it has been adjudicated.

Over the past several years, the Congress has taken exception to the amount in the budget for payment of foreign claims, particularly those in Germany. This reflects a desire that the German Government should pay a larger share of the claims. We believe that the question is much broader than which country pays how much of what claim. The current arrangement is part of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). We cannot change the claims provision of the SOFA without opening up negotiations on the entire SOFA. Unless and until the SOFA is changed, we believe