United States v. Allen
201600391
| N.M.C.C.A. | Jul 20, 2017Background
- Appellant, a Staff Sergeant with 14 years’ service and prior deployments, pleaded guilty at a special court-martial to possession of drug paraphernalia, possession and use of a controlled substance, wrongful appropriation, and larceny in violation of Articles 92, 112a, and 121, UCMJ.
- He kept heroin-use paraphernalia and injected heroin while stationed at Camp Lejeune and withdrew $200 from a gunnery sergeant’s account using the sergeant’s debit card.
- The military judge sentenced him to 60 days’ confinement, reduction to E‑1, and a bad-conduct discharge; the convening authority approved the sentence but suspended confinement beyond 30 days per a pretrial agreement and ordered execution of the remainder except the BCD suspension.
- Appellant had significant service awards and no serious prior disciplinary history; he had an opioid prescription after an IED injury, was later diagnosed with Opioid Use Disorder, and completed rehabilitation; he also experienced personal tragedies.
- Appellant argued the bad-conduct discharge was inappropriately severe given his service and mitigation; the government urged that the sentence was within discretion and appropriate given his leadership role and misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the bad-conduct discharge is inappropriately severe | BCD is disproportionate given appellant’s honorable service, mitigation, and addiction/rehab history | Sentence is lawful and appropriate given the offenses, rank, and adverse impact on unit discipline | Court affirmed: BCD not inappropriately severe; no miscarriage of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Healy v. United States, 26 M.J. 394 (C.M.A. 1988) (individualized sentence appropriateness review; ensure accused gets deserved punishment)
- Snelling v. United States, 14 M.J. 267 (C.M.A. 1982) (consider nature of offense and character of offender for sentence appropriateness)
- Lane v. United States, 64 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (de novo review of sentence appropriateness)
- Baier v. United States, 60 M.J. 382 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (affirming sentencing determinations on appellate review)
- Dedert v. United States, 54 M.J. 904 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2001) (court-martial may impose any lawful sentence it finds appropriate)
- Lacy v. United States, 50 M.J. 286 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (sentence not an abuse of discretion when within statutory maximum)
- Grostefon v. United States, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982) (procedural note: preservation of issues under Grostefon)