CONVERSATION WITH DR. HUGH DRYDEN DEPUTYADMINISTRATOR, NASA, 16 FEBRUARY REGARDING POWERS'

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80B01676R002200020020-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 18
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 6, 2005
• Sequence Number: 20
• Publication Date: February 19, 1962
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R002200020020-6
IT'D 1171-62
19 February 1962
SUBJECT . Conversation with Dr. Hugh Dryden, Deputy Administrator,
NASA, 16 February Regarding Powers' Press Conference
1. Dr. Dryden called me the afternoon of 16 February to express his
concern over the Powers' press conference and the potential involvement of
NASA as a result of things which Powers might say on that subject. In
effect, he was viewing the whole idea of a press conference with a consider-
able amount of restrained enthusiasm.
ing the Board of Inquiry.
2. I reassured Dr. Dryden that although we had not yet formulated
cohesive press policy for the conference, we certainly were mindful of his
interest and would do everything possible to minimize NASA's part in any
statement Powers might be obliged to make. I think this call points up 25X1
the degree to which we must concern ourselves with the whole question of
appropriate guidance for Powers relative to contacts with the press follow-
A.
Acting Chief, DPDdDb
C/CI
NASA, USAF reviews completed
Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R002200020020
25X1
 Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80B01676R002200020020-6
STATEMENT CONCERNING FRANCIS GARY POWERS
Since his return from imprisonment by Soviet Russia,
Francis Gary Powers has undergone a most intensive debriefing
by CIA and other intelligence specialists, aeronautical technicians,
and other experts concerned with various aspects of his mission
and subsequent capture by the Soviets. This was followed by a
complete review by a Board of Inquiry presided over by Judge E.
Barrett Prettyman to determine if Powers complied with the
terms of his employment and his obligations as an American.
The Board has submitted its report to the Director of Central
Intelligence.
Certain basic points should be kept in mind in connection with
this case. The pilots involved in the U-2 program were selected on
the basis of aviation proficiency, physical stamina, emotional stability,
and, of course, personal security. They were not selected or trained
as espionage agents, and the whole nature of the mission was far
removed from the traditional espionage scene. Their job was to fly
the plane, and it was so demanding an assignment that on completion
of a mission physical fatigue was a hazard on landing.
25X1
Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80B01676R002200020020-
 Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R002200020020-6
The pilots' contracts provided that they perform such services
as might be required and follow such instructions and briefings in
connection therewith as were given to them by their superiors. The
guidance was as follows:
"a. If evasion is not feasible and capture appears
imminent, pilots should surrender without resistance and
adopt a cooperative attitude toward their captors.
'b. At all times while in the custody of their captors,
pilots will conduct themselves with dignity and maintain a
respectful attitude toward their superiors.
"c. Pilots will be instructed that they are perfectly free
to tell the full truth about their mission with the exception of
certain specifications of the aircraft. They will be advised to
represent themselves as civilians, to admit previous Air Force
affiliation, to admit current CIA employment, and to make no
attempt to deny the nature of their mission. "
They were instructed, therefore, to be cooperative with their captors within
limitations, to use their own judgment of what they should attempt to
withhold, and not to subject themselves to strenuous hostile interrogation.
It has been established that Mr. Powers had been briefed in accordance
Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R002200020020-6
 Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R002200020020-6
with this policy and so understood his guidance. In regard to the
poison needle which was prominently mentioned at the trial in Moscow,
it should be emphasized that this was intended for use primarily if the
pilot were subjected to torture or other circumstances which in his
discretion warranted the taking of his own life. There were no instructions
that he should commit suicide and no expectation that he would do so
except in those situations just described, and I emphasize that even
taking the needle with him in the plane was not mandatory; it was his
option.
Mr. Powers' performance on prior missions has been reviewed,
and it is clear that he was one of the outstanding pilots in the whole U-2
program. He was proficient both as a flyer and as a navigator and
showed himself calm in emergency situations. His security background
has been exhaustively reviewed, and any circumstances which might
conceivably have led to pressure from or defection to the Russians
have also been exhaustively reviewed, and no evidence has been found
to support any theory that failure of his flight might be laid to Soviet
espionage activities. The same is true of the possibilities of sabotage.
Accordingly, Mr. Powers was assigned to the mission that
eventually occurred on 1 May 1960 and accepted the assignment willingly.
Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R002200020020-6
 Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R002200020020-6
It was a particularly grueling assignment across the heart of Soviet
Russia and ending on the northwest coast of Norway. It was
necessary to maintain extreme altitude at heights at which no other
plane but the U-2 had steadily flown. So far as can be ascertained
Mr. Powers followed the scheduled flight plan, making a prescribed
turn to the northwest when nearing the city of Sverdlovsk where he was
directly on course. According to his statement, he had settled on his
new course and had Sverdlovsk in sight, perhaps 20 or 30 miles away,
when he felt and heard something he describes as a push or feeling
of acceleration on the plane accompanied by a dull noise unlike the
sharp sound of a high explosive. This caused him to look up from his
instruments, and he saw surrounding him, or perhaps reflected in his
canopy, he is not sure, an orange or reddish glare which seemed to
persist. He felt this phenomenon to be external to the plane but says
he cannot be sure. For a moment the plane continued to fly normally,
then it dipped to the right but he found he was able to control this dip
and level the plane with his normal controls. Shortly thereafter,
however, the plane began to nose forward, and Mr. Powers states
that as he drew back on the stick he felt no control as if the control
lines had been severed. The plane nosed sharply over and went into
Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R002200020020-6
 Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R002200020020-6
violent maneuver, at which point he believes the wings came off.
The hull of the plane then turned completely over and he found himself
in an inverted spin with the nose high revolving around the center of
the fuselage so that all he could see through the canopy looking ahead
was the sky revolving around the nose of the plane. This motion
exerted G forces on him which threw him forward and up in the cockpit.
At this point he states he could have reached the destruct switches which
would have set off an explosive charge in the bottom of the plane.
However, he realized that this charge would go off in 70 seconds and
he did not yet know if he could leave the plane. He stated that he tried
to draw himself back into the seat to see if he could activate the ejection
mechanism, but the G forces prevented him from recovering his position.
Being forward and out of the seat, even if he could have used the ejection
mechanism, which was below and behind him, it would have seriously
injured him if activated. He recalled that it was possible to open the
canopy manually, aid shortly thereafter he was able to do so and the
canopy disappeared. His last recollection of the altimeter was that
he was at about 34, 000 feet and descending rapidly. To see if he could
get out of the cockpit, he released his seat belt and was immediately
thrown forward out over the cowling of the cockpit to a position where
Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R002200020020-6
 Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R002200020020-6
he was held only by his oxygen tube. He tried to pull himself back in
the cockpit to the destruct switches which take four separate
manipulations to set and found himself unable to do so because of the
G forces, the inflation of his pressure suit, and the fogging up of his
face mask which totally obscured his view. By pushing he tore loose
the oxygen tube and fell free, whereupon his parachute opened almost
immediately, indicating that he was probably at 15, 000 feet or below
at this time since the automatic mechanism was set for this height.
In connection with Powers' efforts to operate the destruct switches,
it should be noted that the basic weight limitations kept the explosive
charge to 2 1/2 pounds and the purpose of the destruct mechanism was
to render inoperable the precision camera and other equipment, not
to destroy them and the film. After he landed he was taken by
commercial plane to Moscow the same day.
In the processing into the prison he was given a hypodermic
injection which may well have been a general immunization, and there
is no evidence of the use of truth serums or other drugs. From then
until the time of the trial, about 100 days, he was kept in solitary
confinement and subjected to constant interrogation, sometimes as
long as ten or twelve hours a day, but on the average considerably
Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R002200020020-6
 Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R002200020020-6
less than this. He had no access to anyone but his Russian guards
and interrogators despite repeated requests for contact with the
U. S. Embassy or his family and friends. He states that the interrogation
was not intense in the sense of physical violence or severe hostile
methods, and that in some respects he was able to resist answering
specific questions. As an example, his interrogators were interested
in the names of people participating in the project, and he states that
he tried to anticipate what names would become known and gave those,
such as the names of his commanding officer and certain other personnel
at his home base in Adana, Turkey, who would probably be known in
any case to the Russians. However, they asked him for names of other
pilots and he states that he refused to give these on the grounds that
they were his friends and comrades and if he gave their names they
would lose their jobs and, therefore, he could not do so. He states
they accepted this position. It is his stated belief, therefore, that the
information he gave was that which in all probability would be known
in any case to his captors.
At his trial he had only the advice of his Russian defense counsel
to go by, and he advised that unless Powers pleaded guilty to what the
Russians considered a clear violation of domestic law and expressed
Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R002200020020-6
 Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R002200020020-6
penitence matters would go hard for him, including a possible death
sentence. These actions were consistent with his instructions from
CIA. After the trial and sentencing, Mr. Powers states that there
was only intermittent interrogation of little importance and that on the
whole he was well treated, adequately fed, and given medical attention
when required.
All the facts concerning Mr. Powers' mission, the descent of
his plane, his capture, and his subsequent actions, have been subjected
to intensive study. In the first place, Powers was interrogated for
many days consecutively by a debriefing team of experienced interrogators,
one of whose duties was to evaluate Powers' credibility. They expressed
the unanimous view that Powers was truthful in his account. Secondly,
an intensive inquiry was made by Government officials into the background,
life history, education, conduct, and character of Powers. This team
included doctors, specialists in psychiatry and psychology, personnel
officers, his former colleagues in the Air Force and on the U-2 project.
All these persons were of the view that Powers is inherently and by
practice a truthful man. Thirdly, Powers appeared before a Board of
Inquiry and testified at length, both directly and under cross-examination.
Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R002200020020-6
 Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R002200020020-6
The Board agreed that in his appearance he appeared to be truthful,
frank, straightforward, and without any indicated attempt to evade
questions or color what he was saying. In the Board's judgment he
reflected an attitude of complete candor. In the fourth place, when
during his examination before the Board a question was raised as to
the accuracy of one of his statements, he volunteered with some
vehemence that, although he disliked the process of the polygraph,
he would like to undergo a polygraph test. That test was subsequently
duly administered by an expert and in it he was examined on all of the
factual phases which the Board considered critical in this inquiry. The
report by the polygraph operator is that he displayed no indications of
deviation from the truth in the course of that examination. In the
fifth place, a study of the photograph of the debris of the plane and
other information concerning the plane revealed in the opinion of experts
making the study no condition which suggested an inconsistency with
Powers' account of what had transpired. The Board noted the testimony
of Russian witnesses at the trial in Moscow which dealt with the descent
and capture of Powers and with technical features of the plane and the
incident.
The testimony was consistent with the account given by Powers.
Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R002200020020-6
 Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80B01676R002200020020-6
Powers was able to identify a spot near a small village where he thought
he had landed. This location checked with prior testimony given by
Powers as to physical features, directions, and distances and also
corresponded with earlier independent information not known to Powers
that certain of the persons who captured him lived in this same small
village. Some information from confidential sources was available.
Some of it corroborated Powers and some of it was inconsistent in
parts with Powers' story, but that which was inconsistent was in part
contradictory with itself and subject to various interpretations. Some
of this information was the basis for considerable speculation shortly
after the 1 May episode and subsequent stories in the press that Powers'
plane had descended gradually from its extreme altitude and had been
shot down by a Russian fighter at medium altitude. On careful
analysis, it appears that the information on which these stories were
based was erroneous or was susceptible of varying interpretations.
The Board came to the conclusion that it could not accept a doubtful
interpretation in this regard which was inconsistent with all the other
known facts and consequently rejected these newspaper stories as not
founded in fact.
Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80B01676R002200020020-6
 Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80B01676R002200020020-6
On all the information available, therefore, it is the conclusion
of the Board of Inquiry which reviewed Mr. Powers' case and of the
Director of Central Intelligence, who has carefully studied the Board's
report and has discussed it with the Board, that Mr. Powers lived up
to the terms of his employment and instructions in connection with his
mission and in his obligations as an American under the circumstances
in which he found himself. It should be noted that competent
aerodynamicists and aeronautical engineers have carefully studied
Powers' description of his experience and have concluded on the basis
of scientific analysis that a U-2 plane damaged as he described would
perform in its descent in about the manner he stated. Accordingly,
the amount due Mr. Powers under the terms of his contract will be
paid to him.
Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80B01676R002200020020-6
 Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80B01676R002200020620
In my testimony before this Board, I do
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help me God.
25X1
Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R002200020020^6
 Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80B01676R002200020020-6 *AFR 110-9
1-2
AIR FORCE REGULATION) DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
NO. 110-9 S WASHINGTON, 16 OCTOBER 1951
JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL
Courts of Inquiry
When and by Whom Ordered---------------------------------------------------------
Composition ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Convening Order --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jurisdiction -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporters ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interpreters -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clerks and Orderlies------------------------------------------------------------------
Witnesses ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procedure ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right of Challenge-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oaths ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depositions -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Admissibility of Records of Courts of Inquiry_________________________________________
Report by the Court-----------------------------------------------------------------
Record ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication of Proceedings___________________________________________________________
1. When and by Whom Ordered:
a. Statutory Provision. Courts of inquiry
to investigate any matter may be convened by
any person authorized to convene a general court
martial or by any other person designated by
the Secretary of a Department for that purpose
whether or not the persons involved have re-
quested such an inquiry. Uniform Code of Mili-
tary Justice, Article 135(a).
b. Discretion. No convening authority is
obliged to order a court of inquiry. Where a
request is made therefor, and where the facts
are thoroughly understood or can be otherwise
satisfactorily ascertained, the convening au-
thority may, in his discretion, refuse the request.
2. Composition:
a. Number of Officers. A court of inquiry
shall consist of three or more officers * * *. Uni-
form Code of Military Justice, Article 135(b).
b. Retired Officers:
(1) The Secretary of the Air Force may
assign retired officers of the Air Force,
with their consent, to active duty
* * * upon * * * courts of inquiry
* * * (Act 23 April 1904, 10 U.S.C.
991, as changed by Act 26 July 1947,
61 Stat 501).
(2) In time of war retired officers may
be employed on active duty in the
discretion of the President * * *
(section 127a, National Defense Act,
as added by section 51, Act 4 June
1920, 41 Stat 785, 10 U.S.C. 992).
c. Grade of Members. Every member of a
court of inquiry should be senior in permanent
and temporary grade to any officer whose pro-
fessional conduct or record may be involved in
the inquiry. If in any given case exigencies of
the service do not permit a strict compliance with
this rule, departures therefrom may be author-
ized by the convening authority, whose decision
that the same are necessary, as indicated by the
order detailing the court, is final.
d. Counsel:
or the court. For each court of in-
quiry, the convening authority shall
appoint counsel for the court.
(2) For the parties. For each court of
inquiry, the convening authority shall
appoint counsel for any parties to the
investigation known at the time the
court of inquiry is ordered. Any per-
son designated as a party either at
the time the court of inquiry is
ordered, or thereafter, shall have the
right to be represented by civilian
counsel, if provided by him, or by
military counsel of his own selection
if reasonably available, or by the_
counsel for the arties dui appointed.
tFe convenmg authority. Upon
receipt oI' app'Tcatidn-'for`mdividual
military counsel, the convening au-
*The provisions of this Regulation correspond to the provisions of AR 600-300, 23 May 1927, and changes
thereto, which are no longer applicable to Air Force activities.
Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R002200020020-6
 AFII 110-!1
2-8
Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R002200020020-6
thority will take the action pre-
scribed in paragraph 48b, Manual for
Courts Martial, 1951.
(3) All counsel appointed by the conven-
ing authority shall be persons certi-
fied by The Judge Advocate General,
USAF, under Article 27(b) of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice.
3.. Convening Order. The form of conven-
ing r s i.ie similar to that for a court mar-
tial. The order shall appoint members and coun-
sel by naTffS~C!T gra e, x Time an place of
thee mee mg, specify the subject matter of in-
quity, andc:irut the report of the facts only, or,
where required by the convening authority, of
the facts with an opinion on the merits of the
case. If persons brought in as parties after an
investigation has commenced have interests ad-
verse to those of persons theretofore made par-
ties to the investigation, counsel shall. be ap-
pointed by the convening authority for such
parties in separate orders. Counsel for the par-
ties shall not be deemed a part of the court of
inquiry itself.
4. Jurisdiction:
a. As to Persons. Any person subject to the
Uniform Code of Military Justice whose con-
duct is subject to inquiry shall be designated as
a party. An.y person subject to the mentioned
code or employed by the Department of Defense
who has a direct interest in the subject of inquiry
shall have the right to be designated as a party
upon request to the court. See Uniform Code of
Military Justice, Article 135 (c).
b. As to Time. The statute of limitations,
prescribed in the Uniform Code of Military Jus-
tice, Article 43, does not apply to courts of in-
quiry. There is no legal objection, therefore, to
investigating transactions that are remote in
time.
c. As to Subject Matter. Any matter may
be investigated by a court of inquiry. However,
courts of inquiry ordinarily should not be used:
(1) Where existing regulations prescribe
other methods for hearings or other
investigative procedures.
(2) For the investigation of routine or
trivial matters which normally are
part of the duties of a commanding
officer or his staff.
5. Reporters: _
'a. Statutory Provisions:
(1) Under such regulations as the Secre-
tary of the Department may pre-
scribe, the convening authority of a
* * * court of inquiry shall appoint
qualified pour repor re, who s hall
record L1 roceedings of and
testa-0y al en before such court
Uniforrri Cod e of Military Justice,
Article 28.
(2) Enlisted personnel may be detailed
to serve as stenographic reporters for
military courts, boards, and commis-
sions, but shall not receive extra pay
for such service. Section 531(b), Act
12 October 1949.
b. Authorization for Appointment. Subject
to such exceptions as may be made by appoint-
ing authorities and within the limitations of
statutes quoted in a above, the appointment of
reporters or the detail of enlisted personnel to
serve as stenographic reporters is,. authorized.
c. Pay. See AFR 173-90.
6. Interpreters:
a. Appointment:
(1) Under such regulations as the Secre-
tary of the Department may pre-
scribe, the convening authority of a
court of inquiry may appoint an in-
terpreter who shall interpret for the
court. See Uniform Code of Military
Justice, Article 28.
(2) Interpreters may be employed wher-
ever necessary without application to
the appointing authority.
b. Pay. See AFR 173-90.
7. Clerks and Orderlies. The commanding
officer of the place where the court is sitting will
upon request of counsel for the court detail suit-
able airmen as clerks and orderlies to assist a
court of inquiry.
8. Witnesses:
a. General. Witnesses may be summoned
to appear and testify anne examined before
courts ofinquiry as provided for courts martial.
Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article
135(f).
b. Refusal to Appear or Testify. Every
person not subject to the Uniform Code of Mili-
tary Justice who (1) has been duly subpenaed
to appear as a witness before any court of in-
quiry; and (2) has been duly paid or tendered
the fees and mileage of a witness at the rates
allowed to witnesses attending the courts of the
United States; and (19) willfully neglects or re-
fuses to appear, or refuses to qualify as a witness
or to testify or to produce any evidence which
such person may have been legally subpenaed
Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R002200020020-6
 Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80B01676R002200020020-6 AFR 110-9
$-13
to produce; shall be deemed guilty of an offense
against the United States. See Uniform Code of
Military Justice, Article 47.
c. Person Designated as a Party. Any per-
son designated as a party to any investigation of
a court of inquiry shall, at his own request but
not otherwise, be a competent witness, and his
failure to make such request shall not create any
presumption against him. See Act 25 June 1948
(62 Stat 833; 18 U.S.C. 3481).
d. Examination:
1) The examination of witnesses may_ be -
by- counsel f or.the_cDvyt, by the court,
or by a member thercol._in the dis,.
cfetion of the court.
(2) Any person esivnrated as a party
ve. 7i1~ x t * < +r to
cross-examine witng $_Qa_ nd__to intro-
dQe~._-_nvldence. 4tiniform Code of
Military Justice, Article 135(e).
(3) No person shall be compelled to make
a spa em enorpr u6e_ eyl_ ell -
fo e any court of inquiry if the state-
ment or evidence is not material to
the issue and may tend to degrade
him. See Uniform Code of Military
Justice, Article 31.
c. Fees. See AFR 173-90.
9. Procedure:
a. General. A court of inquiry is governed
by the general principles of military law, apply-
ing the analogies of a court martial where they
are applicable, and will refer to adjudged cases,
precedents, rules, authoritative legal opinions,
and approved books of legal exposition where
there is no __manentparamount stated rule.
See Uniform pperCode of Military Justlc rticle 36.
b. Rules of Evidence. The rules of evidence
governing courts martial will be applied by courts
of inquiry, but, subj ect to constitutiput4l or statu-
tory restrictions, these rules may be relaxed in
the discretion of the court.
c. Presence of Person Designated as a Party.
Any person designated as a party shall be given
due notice and shall have the right to be present.
However, the presence of any party is not essen-
tial and his absence does not affect the authority
of the court to proceed with the hearing. See
Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 135 (c).
d. Reduction in Membership of Court:
(1) Where the number of members is re-
L1_`
by casualty or challenge, the
court may proceed with the re-
duced number if not below the mini-
mum, but the appointing authority
should be notified in order that he
may detail new members if he de-
sires to do so.
(2) If any testimony has been taken be-
fore a new member is added, it should
be read to him in the presence of the
other members.
e. Examination of Witnesses. See para-
graph 8d.
10. Right of Challenge. Members of a
court of inquiry may be challenged by a party,
but only for cause stated to the court. The court
shall determine the relevancy and validity of any
challenge and shall not receive a challenge to
more than one member at a time.
11. Oaths:
a. General. The members, counsel, the re-
porter, and interpret s -QT654its_ of inquiry shall
take an oath or aflirr.ation.taiaithfuly_perform
t1eir-dujes. ITnilorm. Code of Military Justice,
Article 135(e).
b. Witnesses. All persons who testify be-
fore a cour#'of inquiry sfialT be examined on
oath or afi'irmatiprl.
c. Who May Administer. The-president and
the counsel for the court of any courr'of inquiry
ghall have the authority to administer oaths in
connection with the matter before the court.
d. Obligation to Secrecy. The oath of mem-
bers of a court of inquiry, unlike that of mem-
bers of a court martial, does not enjoin upon
them secrecy as to the votes and opinions of
members, but it would be contrary to military
custom and usage to divulge the recomm endatioa
and opinion of thecour , wlieie such s required?
unn 11I announced_ by the appointing authority, or
to disclose the vote or opinion of a member un-
less legally required to do so.
12. Depositions. The method of to jug and
authenticating depositions to $e read in evidence
before courts of inquiry shall be as prescribed
in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article
49.
13. Admissibility of Records of Courts of
Inquiry:
a. In any case not capital and not extend-
ing to the dismissal of an officer, the sworn testi-
mony, contained in the duly authenticated record
of proceedings of a court of inquiry, of a person
whose oral testimony cannot be obtained, may,
if otherwise admissible, under the rules of evi-
dence, be read in evidence by any party before
a court martial or military commission if the
accused was a party before the court of inquiry
and if the same issue was involved or if the ac-
Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R002200020020-6
 AFR 110-9
13-17
Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80B01676R002200020020-6
cused consents to the introduction of such evi-
dence.
b. Such testimony may be read in evidence
only by the defense in capital cases or cases ex-
tending to the dismissal of an officer.
c. Such testimony may also be read in evi-
dence before a court of inquiry or military board.
Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 50.
14. Report by the Court. The-cmLrL must. as a finndin_g ive its conclusions as to the facts,
an when or ere d must also an an opinion on
tl crier jhese.. The conclusions or opin-
ion may not be unanimous, in which case a dis-
senting conclusion or opinion is authorized.
a,. Authentication. Each court of inquiry
sha.!l kee = a recor .of its _ -proeee3inggs,r which
s"FialT be authenticated by the signatures of the
pr"esTdent and- counsel for the court ?.. In
casE`tlie record- cannot be authenticated by the
president it shall be signed by a member in lieu
of the president and in case the record cannot be
authenticated by the counsel for the court it
shall be signed by a member in lieu of the counsel.
Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 135.
b. Action after Authentication. The record
after being authenticated shall be forwarded to
the convening authority. Uniform Code of Mili-
tary Justice, Article 135.
c. Disposition. The original proceedings of
all courts of inquiry with the decisions and orders
of the convening authority made thereon will be
forwarded to The Judge Advocate General,
USAF. Accompanying these papers will be eight
copies of the order publishing the case, if there
be any, and a copy of every subsequent order
affecting the case. Where more than one case
is embraced in a single order, a sufficient number
of copies will be forwarded to enable one to be
filed with each record.
16. Revision:
a. If not satisfied with the investigation, or
with the report of opinion, theconveningauthpr?-
ityl xcassen blc the.court, in the same manner
as a court martial, and return the proceedings;
with direction:
(1) To have the investigation pursued
further- and, completed, or the report
of the facts made more detailed and
comprehensive, or the opinion ex-
pressed in terms more definite and
unequivocal or more responsive to the
original instructions; or
(2) To correct some other-error or defect
or supply some omission.
b. The inquiry not being a trial but an in-
vestigation merely, the court may properly be
required, upon revision, to reexamine witnesses
or to take entirely new testimony, or it may do
so of its own motion without orders in connec-
tion with the revision.
17. Publication of Proceedings :
a. The convening authority, having taken
final action upon the report or opinion, may pub-
lish in orders, in whole or in part or in substance,
the report of the court upon the subject of the
inquiry, with the opinion, if any, and the de-
termination had or the action taken thereon.
b. Upon consideration, however, the con-
vening authority may, in his discretion, delay or
omit the publication of the report or may pub-
lish the result alone, as, for example, that it is
determined that no further proceedings are called
for in the case.
K. E. THIEBAUD
Colonel, USAF
Air Adjutant General
DISTRIBUTION:
Er
HOYT S. VANDENBERG
Chief of Staff, United States Air Force
Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80B01676R002200020020-6
 CHANBved For Release 2005/02/17: CIA-RDP80B01676R002200020020-6 AFR 110-9A
2,5-6,8-9,15,17
AIR FORCE REGULATION 1 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
NO. 110--9A WASHINGTON, 18 FEBRUARY 1957
JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL ACTIVITIES
Courts of Inquiry
AFR 110-9, 16 October 1951, is changed as follows:
* * * *
2. Composition:
a. Number of Officers. A court of inquiry
consists of three or more commissioned officers.
Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article
135(b).
b. Delete.
5. Reporters:
a. Statutory Provisions. Under such regu-
lations as the Secretary of the Air Force may
prescribe, the convening authority of a
court of inquiry shall detail or employ qualified
court reporters, who shall record the proceedings
of and the testimony taken before that court
* * *. Uniform Code of Military Justice, Arti-
cle 28.
b. Authorization for Detail or Employment.
Subject to such exceptions as may be made by
appointing authorities and within the limitations
of the statute quoted in a above, the employ-
ment of reporters or the detail of enlisted per-
sonnel to serve as stenographic reporters is au-
thorized. See paragraph 40320, AFM 173-30,
1 July 1954.
c. Pay. See paragraph 40310, AFM 173-30.
6. Interpreters:
a. Statutory Provisions. Under such regu-
lations as the Secretary of the Air Force may
prescribe, the convening authority of a * * *
court of inquiry may detail or employ inter-
preters who shall interpret for the court * * *.
Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 28.
b. Authorization for Detail or Employment.
Interpreters may be detailed or employed
wherever necessary without application to ap-
pointing authorities. See paragraph 40320, AFM
173-30.
e. Fees. See paragraphs 40311 and 40320,
AFM 173-30.
c. Presence of Person Designated as a Party.
Any person designated as a party shall be given
due notice and has the right to be present * *
Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article
135(c).
*
b. Action After Authentication. After
being authenticated, the record shall be for-
warded to the convening authority. (Uniform
Code of Military Justice, Article 135.) The con-
vening authority will refer the record to his staff
judge advocate for review. The staff judge ad-
vocate will submit a written review to the con-
vening authority. This review will include a
summary of the proceedings, together with a
determination on the legal sufficiency thereof
and, if requested, a recommendation of action to
be taken.
c. Disposition. The record shall then be
forwarded by letter of transmittal to The Judge
Advocate General, USAF. The letter of trans-
mittal will include a statement by the convening
authority of any action he has taken or intends
to take based on the report. The Judge Ad-
vocate General shall cause the record to be ex-
amined in his office to insure that the proceed-
ings conform with the provisions of this regula-
tion. A notation that this examination has been
completed will be made on the record.
c. Pay. See paragraph 40312, AFM 173-30. 17. Delete.
BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE:
CHARLES M. McDERMOTT
Colonel, USAF
Acting Air Adjutant General
DISTRIBUTION:
S
Approved For Release 2005/02/17 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R002200020020-6
{7 U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1957
N. F. TWINING
Chief of Staff, United States Air Force