The Supreme Court Adds New Guidelines on “Service Connection” in Determining Court-Martial Jurisdiction

In June of 1969, the Supreme Court decided O\u27Callahan v. Parker, and thereby rocked the very foundation of court-martial jurisdiction. Under that holding, a military court-martial had no jurisdiction to try a serviceman for a crime which occurred off-post, during off-duty hours, while he was on leave with an evening pass, and while he was in civilian clothing. In summary, Mr. Justice Douglas, writing for a 5-3 majority, concluded that courts-martial lacked jurisdiction to try servicemen, on active duty, for offenses which had no “service connection.” The underlying reasons for the O\u27Callahan decision were given as a constitutional interpretation that the result was necessary to preserve (a) grand jury indictments and (b) trial by peers. The Supreme Court’s pronouncement in O\u27Callahan of a “service connection” standard to be used in determining court-martial jurisdiction necessarily evoked a substantial amount of uncertainty as to its full meaning and extent. The military appellate courts immediately began their task of applying that standard to a great variety of factual situations. Yet, the ad hoc standard of O\u27Callahan needed further examination by the Supreme Court so that the Court could better explain the meaning of “service connection.” New guidelines were necessary to provide additional insight into the meaning of O\u27Callahan. On February 25, 1971—almost two years after the O\u27Callahan decision—the Supreme Court decided Relford v. Commandant, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, which has added new dimensions in determining the scope of court-martial jurisdiction. However, to understand better the effects and implications of Relford, it is necessary first to examine the pre-Relford scope of O\u27Callahan as developed by the military appellate courts

Banks and the Equal Pay Act: Establishing a Bona Fide Management Program

There is probably no subject more sensitive to an employer today than discrimination. The mood of the country and the persuasive encouragement of legislation and governmental enforcement, are making employers acutely aware of their obligation to eradicate any type of discrimination in the hiring, paying, promotion and termination of any of their employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in its enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, acts as the vanguard on many of the attacks on discrimination due to race, creed, religion, or national origin.\u27 However, there is another form of discrimination which is equally as pervasive, devastating, deep-rooted, and antithetic as any of the other forms: sex discrimination