UNLIKE DEFENDANTS TRIED BEFORE CIVILIAN JURIES, MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES FACING GENERAL OR SPECIAL COURT MARITALS ARE NOT TRIED BY A JURY OF THEIR PEERS RANDOMLY SELECTED FROM A POOL REPRESENTING QUALIFIED JURORS FROM A CROSS SECTION OF THE MILITARY COMMUNITY. UNDER THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, DEFENDANTS ARE TRIED BY THREE- TO FIVE-MEMBER JURIES, SELECTED BY THE CONVENING AUTHORITY AS THE BEST QUALIFIED PARTICIPANTS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS. THE CONVENING AUTHORITY HAS BROAD POWERS IN THE JURY-SELECTION PROCESS AND CHOOSES JURORS USING CRITERIA THAT ARE BIASED TOWARD MEMBERS OF THE UPPER ECHELON OF OFFICER CORPS. THE CONVENING AUTHORITY'S DUTIES ALSO INCLUDE INITIALLY DECIDING TO BRING CHARGES AGAINST THE ACCUSED AS WELL AS APPOINTING THE PROSECUTOR AND THE DEFENSE COUNSEL, AND REVIEWING AND APPROVING A GUILTY FINDING. THE POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE BY THE CONVENING OFFICER IS ENORMOUS, AND ALTHOUGH SUCH ABUSE IS DIFFICULT TO PROVE, IT HAS BEEN UNCOVERED IN A NUMBER OF CASES REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT. CONCERN OVER POTENTIAL UNCHECKED ABUSE LED THE U.S. COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS TO REJECT THE IDEA THAT MILITARY COURT MEMBERS ARE THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENTS OF JURORS IN A CIVILIAN CRIMINAL TRIAL. IN A SEPTEMBER 1976 RULING, THE COURT OF MILITARY APPEALS EXPRESSED CONCERN OVER THE METHOD OF JURY SELECTION AND INDICATED A NEED FOR A REEXAMINATION BY CONGRESS OF THIS ASPECT OF THE MILITARY COURT PROCESS. THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE (GAO), INTERVIEWED SEVERAL DEFENSE COUNSELS WHO BELIEVED THAT JURORS DRAWN FROM THE HIGHER GRADES MAY BE MORE SEVERE TOWARD THE ACCUSED. IN 244 CASES REVIEWED, GAO FOUND THAT 82 PERCENT OF THE DEFENSE COUNSELS' PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES WERE USED FOR THE REMOVAL OF HIGHER GRADE OFFICERS. GAO ALSO SURVEYED 64 OFFICERS AT ALL ECHELONS CONCERNING JURY SELECTION. ABOUT 80 PERCENT OF THOSE EXPRESSING AN OPINION BELIEVED SOME FORM OF RANDOM SELECTION SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE THE APPEARANCE OF UNFAIRNESS AND THE POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE. SIGNIFICANTLY, THESE OFFICERS WERE THEMSELVES CONVENING AUTHORITIES, COMMANDERS, AND LEGAL PERSONNEL, INCLUDING PROSECUTORS, DEFENSE COUNSELS, AND JUDGES. AN OPINION POLL TAKEN AT FORT RILEY INDICATED THAT 68 PERCENT OF THE RESPONDENTS -- A MAJORITY OF WHOM WERE SELECTED AS JURORS BY CONVENING AUTHORITIES -- FAVOR A CHANGE TO RANDOM SELECTION. GAO RECOMMENDS THAT CONGRESS REQUIRE RANDOM SELECTION OF JURORS AND THAT THEY BE DRAWN FROM A POOL OF QUALIFIED PERSONNEL REPRESENTING A CROSS SECTION OF THE MILITARY COMMUNITY. THIS CHANGE WOULD REQUIRE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF JUROR QUALIFICATION AND ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AND THE LEGISLATIVE DESIGNATION OF RESPONSBILITY FOR THE SELECTION PROCESS. IN ORDER TO EXECUTE THESE CHANGES, CONGRESS WOULD HAVE TO AMEND ARTICLE 25 OF THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. TABULAR DATA REGARDING THE COMPOSITION OF MILITARY COURTS ARE PROVIDED, AS ARE APPENDIXES CONCERNING THE MILITARY BASES VISITED AND TRIAL RECORDS REVIEWED BY GAO, THE TYPES OF CRIMES TRIED BY JURIES, THE OPINION SURVEY OF THE ARMY'S RANDOM JURY SELECTION TEST, CRITERIA USED TO IDENTIFY MILITARY OFFENSES; AND OTHER GAO REPORTS ON THE MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM. (KBL)