United States v. Bickham, ACM S32400

Appellant, an Air Force security forces patrolman, submitted a false witness statement and an insurance claim reporting theft of items from his vehicle that he had not lost.
He identified himself as a base patrolman and made improper statements about foreign nationals to his insurer.
Appellant also falsely told his supervisor he was on three days of convalescent leave when he was not and failed to report for duty.
At a special court-martial, Appellant pleaded guilty pursuant to a pretrial agreement to attempted theft of over $500, three days absence without leave, and a false official statement; sentence: bad-conduct discharge, 30 days confinement, reduction to E-1.
The convening authority approved the sentence and waived forfeitures for dependents; the record of trial (ROT) was docketed with the Court of Criminal Appeals 49 days after convening authority action—19 days beyond the 30-day Moreno standard.
Appellant asked for sentence relief under Tardif/Article 66(c) and a due-process review under Moreno for post-trial delay; he alleged no specific prejudice from the delay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 49-day delay between convening authority action and docketing violated due process under Moreno	Appellant argued the 49-day delay is presumptively unreasonable and warrants relief; also challenged 22-day delay in service of ROT	Government explained logistical and administrative reasons: leave status, base-to-higher-headquarters review, missing receipts, corrective resubmission	No due process violation: delay triggered Moreno review but no cognizable prejudice; delay not egregious enough to undermine public confidence
Whether Tardif/Article 66(c) sentence relief is warranted for post-trial delay	Appellant requested exercise of appellate power to grant sentence relief under Tardif because administrative delay was unjustified	Government pointed to corrective administrative steps, absence of prejudice, and that sentence remains appropriate	Denied Tardif relief: explanations unpersuasive but balancing Gay factors shows no extraordinary relief warranted; sentence affirmed

United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F.) (establishes post-trial delay standards and Moreno presumptions)
United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F.) (addresses Article 66(c) remedial relief for post-trial delay)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four-factor speedy-trial balancing test applied to post-trial delay)
United States v. Toohey, 63 M.J. 353 (C.A.A.F.) (discusses prejudice requirement and public perception standard)
United States v. Dunbar, 31 M.J. 70 (C.M.A.) (criticizes administrative delay in forwarding ROT)
United States v. Gay, 74 M.J. 736 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App.) (factors for assessing whether to grant Tardif relief)