Colonel Folsom. Well, that portion of it—unexecuted portion of the first sentence.
Mr. Ely. That is correct. Thank you.
On page 9 of the exhibit we have some records relating to the second court-martial. At this point, again, I think the page is in general self-explanatory. However, under the section marked "Findings" on each charge, and specifications, there is the notation that on Charge II he was found not guilty, and then it goes on to say, "On specification of" Charge I. Am I correct in thinking that is a typographical error and that it should be that on the specification of Charge II, he was found not guilty?
Colonel Folsom. That is correct.
Mr. Ely. So the record should read, on page 9, that Oswald was found guilty on Charge I, which was a violation of Article 117 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Similarly he was found guilty on the specification under Charge I, which was wrongfully using provoking words to a staff noncommissioned officer. However, on Charge II, which was a violation of Article 128 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, he was found not guilty, and he was similarly found not guilty on the specification of that charge which was assaulting a staff noncommissioned officer by pouring a drink on him.
Colonel Folsom. This is correct.
Mr. Ely. Turning now to page 10 of the exhibit, the title of which is "Administrative Remarks" I note entries dated April 14, 1958, indicating that a request for an extension of Oswald's overseas tour had been received and approved.
Must such a request come from the marine whose overseas tour is involved?
Colonel Folsom. Yes. This must be a voluntary request from the individual concerned.
Mr. Ely. In other words, then, Oswald wanted to stay overseas longer than he was scheduled to have been over there?