On this record we conclude that all the factors point to the offenses being non-service connected. See Rclford v. United States Disciplinary Commandant, supra 401 U.S. at 365, 91 S.Ct. 649. Supporting military jurisdiction there is only Schlo-mann’s status as a serviceman, which was the earlier basis of jurisdiction. See Kin-sella v. Singleton, 361 U.S. 234, 240-241, 80 S.Ct. 297, 4 L.Ed.2d 268. 3 . We note that the Court of Military Appeals has applied O’Callahan to all direct appeals pending on June 2, 1969, when the O’Callahan decision was rendered. s on inadmissibility of confessions announced in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, not to be retroactive) ; Tehan v. Shott, supra (<HOLDING>) ; Linkletter v. Walker, supra (holding the
holding that waiver of privilege against selfincrimination is proceeding specific holding that the drug tax violated the privilege against selfincrimination recognizing commonlaw privilege against selfincrimination holding the rule against adverse comments on a defendants failure to testify as violative of the privilege against selfincrimination announced in griffin v california 380 us 609 85 sct 1229 14 led2d 106 not to he retroactive holding that defendants exercise of right to testify in own behalf waives his fifth amendment privilege against selfincrimination