United States v. Wolfson
United States Army Board of Review
36 C.M.R. 722 (1966)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
In 1964, Captain Sanford Wolfson (defendant), a Harvard-educated surgeon and Army reservist, was sent on temporary orders to a medical dispensary in the Mekong Delta. Wolfson did not want to be in Vietnam, disliked his working conditions, believed his talents as a surgeon were underutilized, and thought that a career army surgeon should fill his position. Wolfson frequently expressed his dissatisfaction to those below him and above him in the chain of command. When General William C. Westmoreland, commander of United States military operations in Vietnam, visited the dispensary on a tour of inspection, Wolfson complained to Westmoreland. The local commander, embarrassed by Wolfson’s actions, began a process that led to Wolfson’s trial by general court-martial. Wolfson was charged with several offenses, including conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman in violation of Article 133 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for 1) negligent failure to shave, 2) presentation of an undisciplined appearance, and 3) constant complaint about his temporary assignment in Vietnam in the presence of superior and subordinate officers and enlisted men. Testimony revealed that Wolfson shaved regularly but that he preferred to shave in the afternoon rather than in the morning and that he never had more than one day’s growth. Wolfson was convicted of several Article 133 violations and appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Baron, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Petkoff, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.