Petitioners were enlisted men in the United States Army who were captured during the hostilities in Korea in 1950 and 1951. In the prison camps to which they were taken they consorted, fraternized and cooperated with their captors and behaved with utter disloyalty to their comrades and to their country. After the Korean Armistice in the summer of 1953, they refused repatriation and went to Communist China. They were dishonorably discharged from the Army in 1954. In 1955 they returned to the United States and filed claims for accrued pay and allowances, which were denied administratively. They then sued in the Court of Claims for pay and allowances from the time of their capture to the date of their discharge from the Army. Held: Under 37 U.S.C. 242 and the Missing Persons Act, petitioners were entitled to the pay and allowances that accrued during their detention as prisoners of war; but no opinion is expressed as to their rights to pay for the period between the Korean Armistice and their administrative discharge, since that question was not separately raised or argued in this Court. Pp. 394-416.
Robert E. Hannon argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioners.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Leonard argued the cause for the United States. On the brief were Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Doub, Alan S. Rosenthal and David L. Rose.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioners were enlisted men in the United States Army who were captured during the hostilities in Korea in 1950 and 1951. In the prison camps to which they were taken they behaved with utter disloyalty to their comrades and to their country. After the Korean Armistice in the summer of 1953 they refused repatriation and went to Communist China. They were formally discharged from the Army in 1954. In 1955 they returned to the United States. Later that year they filed claims with the Department of the Army for accrued pay and allowances. When these claims were denied they brought the present action in the Court of Claims for pay and allowances from the time of their capture to the date of [366 U.S. 393, 395] their discharge from the Army. 1 The Court of Claims decided against them, stating that "[n]either the light of reason nor the logic of analysis of the undisputed facts of record can possibly justify the granting of a judgment favorable to these plaintiffs." 181 F. Supp. 668, 674. Judge Madden dissented. 2 We granted certiorari to consider a seemingly important statutory question with respect to military pay. 363 U.S. 837 .
The Court of Claims made detailed findings of fact with respect to the petitioners' conduct as prisoners of war, based upon a stipulation filed by the parties. 3 These circumstances [366 U.S. 393, 396] need not be set out in minute detail. They are adequately summarized in the opinion of the Court of Claims, as follows:
The Army's refusal to pay the petitioners was based upon an administrative determination that all prisoners of war who had declined repatriation after the Korean Armistice "advocate, or are members of an organization [366 U.S. 393, 399] which advocates, the overthrow of the United States Government by force or violence." 5 In refusing to honor the petitioners' claims upon this ground, the Army was apparently relying upon a statute enacted in 1939 which made it unlawful to pay from funds appropriated by any Act of Congress the compensation of "any person employed in any capacity by any agency of the Federal Government" who was a member of "any political party or organization which advocates the overthrow of our constitutional [366 U.S. 393, 400] form of government in the United States." 6 That this statute was the basis of the Army's decision is evident not only in the language employed in rejecting the petitioners' demands, but also in the pleadings filed in the Court of Claims. 7 We need not, however, now decide the applicability of this statute to members of the Armed Forces, for the reason that the statute was repealed more than a year before the Army relied upon it in refusing to pay the petitioners. 8 [366 U.S. 393, 401]
Although this was the only ground ever advanced for the administrative denial of the petitioners' claims, the Government's brief in this Court, for understandable reasons, does not even mention this repealed statute. Instead, the Government now relies upon other grounds to avoid the provisions of 37 U.S.C. 242. It says that the petitioners violated their obligation of faithful service, 9 and points to the principle of contract law that "one who wilfully commits a material breach of a contract can recover nothing under it. 4 Williston, Contracts (1936 ed.) 1022, pp. 2823-4; 5 Williston, Contracts (1936 ed.) 1477; 5 Corbin, Contracts (1951 ed.) 1127, pp. 564-5, see also Restatement Contracts, 357 (1) (a)."
In accord with this principle, the Government argues that in the Missing Persons Act, 10 a statute first enacted in 1942, 11 Congress provided a statutory basis for denying the petitioners' claims. We do not so construe that statute.
Preliminary, it is to be observed that common-law rules governing private contracts have no place in the area of military pay. A soldier's entitlement to pay is dependent upon statutory right. In the Armed Forces, as everywhere else, there are good men and rascals, courageous men and cowards, honest men and cheats. If a soldier's conduct falls below a specified level he is subject to discipline, and his punishment may include the forfeiture of future but not of accrued pay. 12 But a soldier [366 U.S. 393, 402] who has not received such a punishment from a duly constituted court-martial is entitled to the statutory pay and allowances of his grade and status, however ignoble a soldier he may be. 13
This basic principle has always been recognized. It has been reflected throughout our history in numerous court decisions and in the opinions of Attorneys General and Judge Advocates General. "Enlistment is a contract; but it is one of those contracts which changes the status; and, where that is changed, no breach of the contract destroys the new status or relieves from the obligations which its existence imposes. . . . By enlistment the citizen becomes a soldier. His relations to the State and the public are changed. He acquires a new status, with correlative rights and duties; and although he may violate his contract obligations, his status as a soldier is unchanged." In re Grimley, 137 U.S. 147, 151 , 152.
Almost a hundred years ago Attorney General Hoar rendered an opinion to the Secretary of War regarding the right to pay of a Major Herod, who had been "charged with murder, arrested, tried by a court-martial, and sentenced to be hung." The Attorney General stated:
The statute upon which the petitioners rely applies this same principle to a specialized situation. A serviceman captured by the enemy and thus unable to perform his normal duties is nonetheless entitled to his pay. The rule has commanded unquestioned adherence throughout our history, as two cases will suffice to illustrate.
In 1807 a sailor named John Straughan was a member of the crew of the American frigate Chesapeake. After that vessel's ill-starred engagement with the British man-of-war Leopard off Hampton Roads, Straughan was taken [366 U.S. 393, 405] abroad the Leopard and impressed into service in the British Navy. There he served for five years and nine days before he finally was repatriated. Years later his widow sued for his pay and rations as a member of the United States Navy during the period he had been held by the British. The Court of Claims ruled that, even though we had not been at war in 1807, the Chesapeake had nevertheless been "taken by an enemy," and that Straughan's widow was entitled to the United States Navy pay and allowances that had accrued while he was serving with the British. Straughan v. United States, 1 Ct. Cl. 324. 15
In October, 1863, a lieutenant in the Union Army named Henry Jones was taken prisoner by Confederate guerrillas near Elk Run, Virginia. Jones was confined in Libby Prison until March 1, 1865, when he was exchanged and returned to the Union lines. Upon his return he found that he had been administratively dismissed from the service in November, 1863, because he had been in disobedience of orders at the time of his capture. When the Army for that reason refused his demand for pay and allowances, he filed suit in the Court of Claims. The court entered judgment in his favor, stating that "[t]he contrary would be to hold that an executive department could annul and defy an act of Congress at its pleasure." Jones v. United States, 4 Ct. Cl. 197, 203.
It is against this background that we turn to the Government's contention that the Missing Persons Act authorized the Army to refuse to pay the petitioners their statutory pay and allowances in this case. The provisions of the Act which the Government deems pertinent [366 U.S. 393, 406] are set out in the margin. 16 Originally enacted in 1942 as temporary legislation, 17 the Act was amended and re-enacted several times, 18 and finally was made permanent in 1957. 19 So far as relevant here, this legislation provides that any person in active service in the Army "who is officially determined to be absent in a status of . . . captured by a hostile force" is entitled to pay and allowances; that "[t]here shall be no entitlement to pay [366 U.S. 393, 407] and allowances for any period during which such person may be officially determined absent from his post of duty without authority"; that the Secretary of the Army or his designated subordinate shall have authority to make all determinations necessary in the administration of the Act, and for purposes of the Act determinations so made as to any status dealt with by the Act shall be conclusive.
We are asked first to hold that "[s]ince the Missing Persons Act is later in time, is comprehensive in scope, and includes within its provisions the whole subject matter [366 U.S. 393, 408] of R.S. 1288 [the statute upon which the petitioners rely], any inconsistency or repugnancy between the two statutes should be resolved in favor of the Missing Persons Act." This step having been taken, we are asked to decide that the petitioners, because of their behavior after their capture, were no longer in the "active service in the Army . . . of the United States," and that they were therefore not covered by the Act. It is also suggested, alternatively, that the Secretary of the Army might have determined that each of the petitioners after capture was "absent from his post of duty without authority," and, therefore, not entitled to pay and allowances under the Act. We can find no support for these contentions in the language of the statute, in its legislative history, or in the Secretary's administrative determination.
The Missing Persons Act was a response to unprecedented personnel problems experienced by the Armed Forces in the early months after our entry into the Second World War. Originally proposed by the Navy Department, the legislation was amended on the floor of the House to cover the other services. As the Committee Reports make clear, the primary purpose of the legislation was to alleviate financial hardship suffered by the dependents of servicemen reported as missing. 20 [366 U.S. 393, 409]
To hold that the Missing Persons Act operated to repeal the statute upon which the petitioners rely would be a long step to take, for at least two reasons. In the first place, the record of the hearings of the Senate Committee on Naval Affairs clearly discloses that at the time the Missing Persons Act was being considered, the Committee was made fully aware of the 1814 statute, and manifested no inclination to disturb it. 21 Secondly, it is not entirely accurate to say, as does the Government, that the [366 U.S. 393, 410] Missing Persons Act is "later in time." After the original passage of that Act in 1942, the statute upon which the petitioners rely was recodified in 1952 and again in 1958. 22
But the question whether there was a repeal by implication is one that we need not determine here, for it is clear that under either statute the petitioners are entitled to the pay and allowances that accrued during their detention as prisoners of war. The Missing Persons Act unambiguously provides that any person "in the active service . . . officially determined to be absent in a status of . . . captured by a hostile force . . . [is] entitled to receive or to have credited to his account the same . . . pay [and allowances] to which he was entitled at the beginning of such period of absence . . . ." It affirmatively appears on this record that the petitioners were in the active service of the Army, that they were in fact captured by the enemy, and that they were later officially determined to be "absent in a status of . . . captured by a hostile force." The terms of the Missing Persons Act are therefore expressly applicable.
The argument that it was open to the Secretary of the Army to determine that the petitioners in the prison camps to which they were taken were thereafter not "in the active service" cannot survive even cursory analysis. In the Armed Forces the term "active service" has a precise meaning, a meaning not dependent upon individual conduct. 10 U.S.C. 101. 23 Moreover, the verbal [366 U.S. 393, 411] structure of the Act, re-enforced by common sense, clearly leads to the conclusion that "active service" refers to a person's status at the time he became missing. Nothing in the legislative history of the original statute or of its many re-enactments offers support for any other construction. That history simply reflects a continuing purpose to widen the classes of persons to whom the benefactions of the law were to be extended, from the time those persons became missing. 24 [366 U.S. 393, 412]
The Government's alternative argument seems, as a matter of statutory construction, equally invalid. The legislative history discloses that the provision denying pay to a person officially determined to have been "absent from his post of duty without authority" was enacted to cover the case of a person found to have been "missing" in the first place only by reason of such unauthorized absence. 25 Moreover, desertion and absence without leave are technically defined offenses. 10 U.S.C. 885, 10 U.S.C. 886; see Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, p. 315 (1951). It is open to serious question whether the conduct of the petitioners after their capture could conceivably have been determined to be tantamount either to desertion or absence without leave. See Avins, Law of AWOL, p. 167 (1957); Snedeker, Military Justice under the Uniform Code, p. 562 (1953).
These are questions which we need not, however, pursue. We need not decide in this case that the Secretary of the Army was wholly without power under the statute to determine administratively that the petitioners after their capture were no longer in active service, or that they were absent from their posts of duty. Nor need we finally decide whether either such determination by the Secretary would have been valid as a matter of law. The simple fact is that no such administrative determination has ever been made. The only reason the Army ever advanced for refusing to pay the petitioners was its determination that they had "advocated, or were members of an organization which advocated, . . . the overthrow of the United States Government by force or violence." 26 That determination has now been totally abandoned. The Army has never even purported to determine that the [366 U.S. 393, 413] petitioners were not in active service or that they were absent from their posts of duty. 27 The Army cannot rely upon something that never happened, upon an administrative determination that was never made, even if it be assumed that such a determination would have been permissible under the statute and supported by the facts. 28 [366 U.S. 393, 414] See Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363 ; Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535 . For these reasons we hold that the petitioners were entitled under the applicable statutes to the pay and allowances that accrued during their detention as prisoners of war.
Throughout these proceedings no distinction has been made between the petitioners' pay rights while they were prisoners and their rights after the Korean Armistice when they voluntarily declined repatriation and went to Communist China. Since both the Army and the Court of Claims denied the petitioners' claims entirely, no separate [366 U.S. 393, 415] consideration was given to the petitioners' status after their release as prisoners of war until the date of their administrative discharges. Nor did the petitioners in this Court address themselves to the question of the petitioners' rights to pay during that interval. Yet, it is evident that the petitioners' status during that period might be governed by considerations different from those which have been discussed. Other statutory provisions and regulations would come into play. Accordingly we express no view as to the petitioners' pay rights for the period between the Korean Armistice and their administrative discharges, leaving that question to be fully canvassed in the Court of Claims, to which in any event this case must be remanded for computation of the judgments.
The disclosure of grave misconduct by numbers of servicemen captured in Korea was a sad aftermath of the hostilities there. The consternation and self-searching which followed upon that disclosure are still fresh in the memories of many thoughtful Americans. 29 The problem is not a new one. 30 Whether the solution to it lies alone [366 U.S. 393, 416] in subsequent prosecution and punishment is not for us to inquire. 31 Congress may someday provide that members of the Army who fail to live up to a specified code of conduct as prisoners of war shall forfeit their pay and allowances. 32 Today we hold only that the Army did not lawfully impose that sanction in this case.
The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[ Footnote 2 ] Judge Madden stated:
[ Footnote 3 ] The petitioners did not stipulate that these facts were true, but did agree "that the facts hereinafter set forth shall, for the purposes of this case, be deemed to have been elicited from defendant's witnesses testifying under oath," and that "[t]he facts so elicited, and hereinafter set forth, have not been rebutted by plaintiffs or by [366 U.S. 393, 396] plaintiffs' witnesses, and plaintiffs, and each of them, hereby waive the right to testify or to call witnesses to testify in rebuttal of these facts."
[ Footnote 4 ] The statute was originally enacted on March 30, 1814, as 14 of "An Act for the better organizing, paying, and supplying the army of the United States." C. 37, 14, 3 Stat. 113, 115. The provision next appeared as R. S. 1288. In the 1952 edition of the Code, it appeared at 10 U.S.C. 846. Title 10, at that time, dealt with the Army and the Air Force. In the 1958 edition of the Code, the provision was transferred to Title 37, c. 4, which covers basic pay and allowances of military personnel.
[ Footnote 5 ] This position was set out in a letter from the Army Chief of Finance to the petitioners' lawyer, rejecting the petitioners' claims. The letter in its entirety read as follows:
[ Footnote 6 ] "(1) It shall be unlawful for any person employed in any capacity by any agency of the Federal Government, whose compensation, or any part thereof, is paid from funds authorized or appropriated by any Act of Congress, to have membership in any political party or organization which advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government in the United States.
[ Footnote 7 ] The "Second Affirmative Defense" read in part as follows:
[ Footnote 8 ] August 9, 1955, c. 690, 4 (2), 69 Stat. 625.
[ Footnote 9 ] "I, ......................, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America; that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies whomsoever; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." 10 U.S.C. 501.
[ Footnote 10 ] 50 U.S.C. App. 1001 et seq.
[ Footnote 11 ] 56 Stat. 143.
[ Footnote 12 ] See Article 57, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 857.
[ Footnote 13 ] Unless he is absent without leave or a deserter, United States v. Landers, 92 U.S. 77 ; Dodge v. United States, 33 Ct. Cl. 28; Dig. Op. JAG Army 265 (1868); Dig. Op. JAG Army 850 (1912); JAGA 1952/5875, 2 Dig. Op. SENT. & PUN. 35.7; JAGA 1953/1074, 3 Dig. Op. PAY 21.15; Davis, Military Laws of the United States, p. 371, n. 2 (1897); Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents, pp. 645-646 (2d ed. 1920). But see Comment, Mil. L. Rev., July (1960) (DA Pam 27-100-9, 1 Jul 60), p. 151. And see generally U.S. Army Special Text 27-157, Military Affairs (1955), pp. 1605-1612.
[ Footnote 14 ] See Conrad v. United States, 32 Ct. Cl. 139; Carrington v. United States, 46 Ct. Cl. 279. See also Dig. Op. JAG Army 265 (1868); Dig. Op. JAG Army 850 (1912). The rule cuts both ways, as the case of Ward v. United States, 158 F.2d 499, illustrates. There the plaintiff, a yeoman in the Navy, had actually performed the duties of a land title attorney. He sued to recover the reasonable value of his services, less what he had received as a yeoman. The Court of Appeals approved a dismissal of the complaint, with the comment that "[h]is rating fixed his status and his pay." 158 F.2d, at 502.
[ Footnote 15 ] The case was decided under a statute specifically applicable to naval personnel, originally enacted in 1800, 2 Stat. 45, now 37 U.S.C. 244. See n. 32, infra.
[ Footnote 16 ] " 1001. Definitions.
[ Footnote 17 ] Act of March 7, 1942, 56 Stat. 143.
[ Footnote 18 ] Act of December 24, 1942, 56 Stat. 1092; Act of July 1, 1944, 58 Stat. 679; 4 (e) of Selective Service Act of 1948, 62 Stat. 608; Act of July 3, 1952, 66 Stat. 330, 331; Act of April 4, 1953, 67 Stat. 20-21; Act of January 30, 1954, 68 Stat. 7; Act of June 30, 1955, 69 Stat. 238; Act of July 20, 1956, 70 Stat. 595; Act of August 7, 1957, 71 Stat. 341.
[ Footnote 19 ] Act of August 29, 1957, 71 Stat. 491.
[ Footnote 20 ] "In general, the purposes of this bill are to provide authorization for the continued payment or credit in the accounts, of the pay and allowances of missing persons for 1 year following the date of commencement of absence from their posts of duty or until such persons have been officially declared dead [In December, 1942, the statute was amended so as to permit a department head to continue personnel in a missing status for an indefinite period. 56 Stat. 1092.]; the continued payment for the same period of the allotments for the support of dependents and for the payment of insurance premiums, and for regular monthly payments to the dependents of missing persons, in the same manner in which allotments are paid, in those instances in which the missing persons had neglected to [366 U.S. 393, 409] provide for their dependents through the medium of allotments, such payments to be deducted from the pay of the missing persons in the same manner in which allotments are paid.
. . . . .
[ Footnote 21 ] The Committee was advised by a representative of the Marine Corps as follows: "Section 1288, Revised Statutes (sec. 846, title 10, U.S. Code), provides that noncommissioned officers and privates shall be entitled to receive during their captivity by an enemy, notwithstanding the expiration of their terms of service, the same pay, subsistence, and allowances to which they may be entitled while in the actual service of the United States. This applies only to enlisted personnel, and I know of no such law affecting the pay and allowances of officers and nurses. The proposed legislation would also authorize the crediting, in the account of the individual concerned, of the same pay and allowances received at the time an individual is reported as missing or missing in action until his status is determined by competent authority." Hearings before the Senate Committee on Naval Affairs on H. R. 6446, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 13-14.
[ Footnote 22 ] See note 4.
[ Footnote 23 ] A House Committee Report concerning a proposed amendment to the Act sets forth a letter from the Secretary of the Army clearly showing his understanding that "active service" was employed in the statute as a technical phrase embodying a technical status: "Also, the proposal would amend section 2 of the Missing Persons Act to provide coverage for persons on training duty under certain conditions, in addition to persons on active service." H. R. Rep. No. 2535, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 7. See also H. R. Rep. No. 204, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 8; H. R. Rep. No. 888, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 3; H. R. Rep. No. 2354, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 3; S. Rep. No. 573, 85th [366 U.S. 393, 411] Cong., 1st Sess., p. 4; S. Rep. No. 970, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 7; S. Rep. No. 2552, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 3.
[ Footnote 24 ] For example, when the statute was amended in 1957 to extend coverage to those in "full-time training duty, other full-time duty, or inactive duty training," an Army spokesman testifying before the House Subcommittee expressed the clear view that "active service" referred to the moment the person entered a missing status. "The purpose of that . . . is to insure that people who are in a nonpay status at the time they enter in a missing or missing-in-action status are covered. . . . Under the present wording of the bill it is conceivable that being in a nonpay status at the time that he enters into a missing status his survivors would not be entitled to any pay or allowances. This would insure that they would be entitled to the pay and allowances that he would have had, had he been on active duty at the time that he entered into a missing status." Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1 of the House Committee on Armed Services on H. R. 2404, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 563.
In S. Rep. No. 970, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., the Committee on Armed Services stated: "Coverage would be extended to members of the Reserve components while they are performing full-time training duty, other full-time duty, and inactive duty training with or without pay. Members of the Reserve components entering a missing status while performing duty of the types enumerated would have credited to their pay accounts the same pay and allowances that they would receive if they were performing full-time active duty. Some reservists participate in training without pay, such as week-end proficiency flights in aircraft, and this amendment is intended to treat them as if they were on active duty when they entered a missing status." P. 3. Similar statements may be found in H. R. Rep. No. 2535, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 3, and H. R. Rep. No. 204, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2. Certainly the thrust of these statements is a primary concern with status at the time the missing status is first entered.
[ Footnote 25 ] See H. R. Rep. No. 1680, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 5; Hearings before House Committee on Naval Affairs on H. R. 4405, 78th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 2316.
[ Footnote 26 ] See note 5, supra.
[ Footnote 27 ] Nor has the Army ever purported to determine that the petitioners were not in "captivity" or "in the actual service of the United States" within the meaning of 37 U.S.C. 242.
[ Footnote 28 ] The record of a 1954 hearing before the House Armed Services Committee on a bill to extend the life of the Missing Persons Act indicates that some thought was being given at that time to the possibility of an administrative determination that the petitioners were absent from their posts of duty:
[ Footnote 29 ] See Report by the Secretary of Defense's Advisory Committee on Prisoners of War (1955).
[ Footnote 30 ] In 1333 John Culwin was charged with having sworn allegiance to his Scottish captors. 1 Hale, Historia Placitorum Coronae 167-168 (1736). The earliest reported American case of prisoner of war misconduct appears to be Republica v. McCarty, 2 Dall. 86 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1781). During the Civil War thousands of captives on each side defected to the enemy. See H. R. Rep. No. 45, 40th Cong., 3d Sess., pp. 229, 742-777 (1869); Report by the Secretary of Defense's Advisory Committee on Prisoners of War, p. 51 (1955). Two treason trials grew out of prisoner of war misconduct during World War II. United States v. Provoo, 124 F. Supp. 185, rev'd, 215 F.2d 531, second indictment dismissed, 17 F. R. D. 183, aff'd, 350 U.S. 857 ; United States ex rel. Hirshberg v. Malanaphy, 73 F. Supp. 990, rev'd, 168 F.2d 503, rev'd sub nom. United States ex rel. Hirshberg v. Cooke, 336 U.S. 210 . More than forty British prisoners of war were brought to trial for misconduct. See note, 56 Col. L. Rev. 709-721 (1956).
[ Footnote 31 ] Upon their return to the United States in July 1955, the petitioners were confined by the United States Army in San Francisco, California, to await trial by general court-martial for violation of Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In November of that year they were released from confinement by virtue of writs of habeas corpus issued by a Federal District Court, on the authority of Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 . There have been several court-martial prosecutions growing out of alleged misconduct by Army prisoners of war in Korea. See United States v. Dickenson, 17 C. M. R. 438, aff'd, 6 U.S.C. M. A. 438, 20 C. M. R. 154; United States v. Floyd, 18 C. M. R. 362; United States v. Batchelor, 19 C. M. R. 452, aff'd, 7 U.S.C. M. A. 354, 22 C. M. R. 144; United States v. Olson, 20 C. M. R. 461, aff'd, 7 U.S.C. M. A. 460, 22 C. M. R. 250; United States v. Gallagher, 21 C. M. R. 435; United States v. Bayes, 22 C. M. R. 487; United States v. Alley, 8 U.S.C. M. A. 559, 25 C. M. R. 63; United States v. Fleming, 19 C. M. R. 438. See the discussion of these cases in Prugh, Justice for All RECAP-K'S, Army Combat Forces Journal, November 1955, p. 15; Note, 56 Col. L. Rev. 709.
[ Footnote 32 ] A statute relating to the right to pay of members of the United States Navy who are taken prisoner does appear to require a standard of conduct after capture: