United States v. Brown
201600389
| N.M.C.C.A. | Sep 28, 2017Background
- Appellant, enlisted Marine (joined July 8, 2013), had ~2 years of otherwise honorable service and no prior disciplinary history; recommended for meritorious promotion in April 2015.
- Between Dec 2015 and Jun 2016, appellant unlawfully ingested cocaine on three occasions and tested positive on three urinalyses.
- Appellant disobeyed a direct order to attend an out‑of‑town court proceeding (resulting in an arrest warrant) and failed to attend six ordered STOP counseling sessions; he falsely told his commanding officer he was at the sports medicine clinic when he remained in his barracks.
- Convening authority referred a special court‑martial; appellant pled guilty to multiple specifications: six failures to go to appointed place of duty (merged for sentencing), one failure to obey a lawful order, one false official statement, and three wrongful uses of a controlled substance (Articles 86, 92, 107, 112a).
- Military judge sentenced appellant to 110 days confinement, reduction to E‑1, and a bad‑conduct discharge; CA approved except directed execution of the discharge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the bad‑conduct discharge is inappropriately severe under Article 66 (sentence appropriateness) | The discharge is disproportionate given appellant's otherwise honorable ~2.5 years of service, lack of prior misconduct, and mitigating/explanatory evidence | The government argued the misconduct (repeated cocaine use, false official statement, disobeying orders) was serious, damaged unit trust, and justified the sentence | Court affirmed: sentence is appropriate after de novo review; misconduct not "relatively minor" and mitigation insufficient to warrant relief |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lane, 64 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F.) (sentence appropriateness reviewed de novo)
- United States v. Healy, 26 M.J. 394 (C.M.A.) (purpose of sentence appropriateness review: assure accused gets deserved punishment)
- United States v. Snelling, 14 M.J. 267 (C.M.A.) (individualized consideration of offender and offense)
- United States v. Nerad, 69 M.J. 138 (C.A.A.F.) (limits on appellate clemency power)
- United States v. Lacy, 50 M.J. 286 (C.A.A.F.) (seriousness of drug use and related misconduct)
- United States v. Baier, 60 M.J. 382 (C.A.A.F.) (weighing offense seriousness against mitigation for sentence review)