United States v. Acosta, 201700076

Appellant, a sailor aboard USS GERALD R. FORD, pleaded guilty at a general court-martial to assault consummated by a battery in violation of Article 128, UCMJ.
Incident: after a breakup and an argument about alleged infidelity in July 2015, appellant locked the bathroom door, forcefully dragged and held the victim (ABHAA SL) on the floor for ~25 minutes, recorded the encounter on her phone, retained her phone and keys, and only released her after another sailor intervened.
Victim reported abdominal and neck soreness and perineal micro-lacerations and stated the appellant digitally penetrated her over her objections; she described significant emotional harm and changes to her trust and personality.
Military judge sentenced appellant to forfeiture of all pay and allowances and a bad-conduct discharge; the convening authority approved the sentence but did not order the bad-conduct discharge executed.
Appellant claimed the bad-conduct discharge was inappropriately severe given his prior service and minimal visible physical injury; he also identified an error in the court-martial order stating he pled not guilty.
The court affirmed the findings and sentence, found no prejudice from the CMO error but ordered the supplemental CMO corrected to reflect the guilty plea.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Sentence appropriateness	Bad-conduct discharge is overly severe given lack of noticeable physical injury and prior good service	Conduct and victim impact (including digital penetration and emotional harm) justify the sentence	Affirmed: sentence appropriate based on nature of offense, harm, and offender's record; relief would be clemency
Incorrect court-martial order (CMO)	CMO mistakenly stated a not-guilty plea; CA attempted supplemental CMO but lacked authority later	Error produced no prejudice to appellant; official records should be accurate	Order corrective action: supplemental CMO must reflect appellant pled guilty to Charge II and its specification

United States v. Lane, 64 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (standard for de novo review of sentence appropriateness)
United States v. Healy, 26 M.J. 394 (C.M.A. 1988) (purpose of sentence appropriateness review)
United States v. Snelling, 14 M.J. 267 (C.M.A. 1982) (consider offender’s character and offense seriousness)
United States v. Nerad, 69 M.J. 138 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (limits on appellate courts acting as clemency bodies)
United States v. Baier, 60 M.J. 382 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (factors in weighing sentence appropriateness and mitigation)
United States v. Crumpley, 49 M.J. 538 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1998) (entitlement to accurate official records)
United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982) (preserving assignments of error under Grostefon)