retroactive. In No. L-1283 Schlomann also alleged that he was out of uniform. Since that case was dismissed on consideration of the complaint, and no other pleadings therein, we must accept the allegation for purposes of the appeal. In any event, the Government, as stated, has conceded that the offenses were not service connected, and we feel this is clear under the Relford guidelines. In terms of these guidelines Schlomann was off duty, off the post and the Government does not argue he was improperly absent from it when the offenses occurred. They were committed away from the base; their commission was at a place not under military control; they occurred within our territorial limits and not in an occupied zone of a foreign country; their commission was in peaceti t. 35, 21 L.Ed.2d 5 (<HOLDING>) ; Berger v. California, 393 U.S. 314, 89 S.Ct.
holding that counsel must be appointed to indigents for purposes of appeal as announced in douglas v california 372 us 353 83 sct 814 9 led2d 811 to be retroactive holding that exculpatory evidence withheld by government was not material for purposes of brady v maryland 373 us 83 83 sct 1194 10 led2d 215 1963 when there was considerable forensic and other physical evidence linking the defendant to the crime holding that brady v maryland 373 us 83 83 sct 1194 10 led2d 215 1963 creates no government duty to disclose names of witnesses holding the right to counsel extends to preliminary hearing where defendant enters a plea and such idea is put into evidence at subsequent trial white v maryland 373 us 59 83 sct 1050 10 led2d 193 to be retroactive holding the right to assistance of counsel as announced in gideon v wainwright 372 us 335 83 sct 792 9 led2d 799 to be retroactive