United States v. Buklerewicz 20 C.M.A. 128, 42 C.M.R. 320, 20 USCMA 128

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

The pendency of United States v Palos, 20 USCMA 104, 42 CMR 296, decided this date, led us to grant review in this case. For the reasons set out in our opinion in Palos, we affirm the decision of the United States Navy Court of Military Review.

Judge Darden concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent.

I disagree with my brothers’ holding in this case that the plea of guilty was properly accepted by the military judge for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Palos, 20 USCMA 104, 42 CMR 296 (1970). The military judge's failure to make a specific finding on the record that the accused knowingly, intelligently, and consciously waived his right against self-incrimination, his right to trial of the facts by a court-martial, and his right to be confronted by the witnesses against him, is, in my opinion, reversible error. Cf. United States v Donohew, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149 (1969); United States v Fortier, 19 USCMA 149, 41 CMR 149 (1969). Without this specific finding on the record, the record is not verbatim as required by law. See my separate opinion in Palos, supra.