United States v. Bracewell, 201600060

Appellant, a Sailor aboard USS FORT MCHENRY, was tried by general court-martial and convicted by members of three specifications of abusive sexual contact against EN3 AC under Article 120(d), UCMJ.
Incident: after a night at a bar/strip club, EN3 AC slept in an SUV while HM1 AA was incapacitated; the appellant entered the vehicle, kissed EN3 AC (tongue), squeezed her cheeks, and touched/put his mouth on her breast; EN3 AC resisted and later reported the assault.
Investigative evidence included EN3 AC’s testimony, corroborating testimony from shipmates about her emotional state and injuries to HM1 AA, and DNA evidence showing the appellant’s profile inside EN3 AC’s bra cup.
The appellant initially denied contact in an NCIS interrogation but later admitted some contact ("probably licking her breast") after being confronted with possible DNA evidence and claimed it was consensual.
Members sentenced the appellant to six months’ confinement, reduction to E-1, and a dishonorable discharge (the CA approved and ordered execution except for the punitive discharge).
On appeal the appellant challenged: (1) legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence (arguing lack of proof of nonconsent/bodily harm), and (2) sentence appropriateness (arguing the dishonorable discharge was excessive given service record).

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Legal and factual sufficiency of abusive sexual contact convictions	Evidence shows contact but not that it was nonconsensual or committed by bodily harm; complainant not credible and uncorroborated	EN3 AC's detailed testimony, corroboration, DNA, and appellant's interrogation admissions/demeanor support convictions	Affirmed: evidence legally and factually sufficient for convictions
Sentence appropriateness (dishonorable discharge)	Dishonorable discharge is unduly severe given seven years’ service and two deployments	Nature and seriousness of the assaults, lasting harm to victim, and offender’s conduct justify the sentence	Affirmed: sentence appropriate; appellate court will not act as clemency grantor

United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency)
United States v. Day, 66 M.J. 172 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (legal sufficiency test)
United States v. Turner, 25 M.J. 324 (C.M.A. 1987) (legal sufficiency standard precedent)
United States v. Barner, 56 M.J. 131 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (drawing inferences for prosecution on legal sufficiency)
United States v. Rankin, 63 M.J. 552 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2006) (factual sufficiency standard)
United States v. Cole, 31 M.J. 270 (C.M.A. 1990) (appellate court may judge witness credibility)
United States v. Lane, 64 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (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) (individualized consideration for sentencing)
United States v. Baier, 60 M.J. 382 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (appellate guidance on sentence review)