United States v. Catano
ACM 39092
A.F.C.C.A.Jan 4, 2018Background
- Appellant pleaded guilty (per pretrial agreement) to AWOL, multiple drug-possession/use specifications, and aggravated assault; members sentenced him to a bad-conduct discharge, 239 days confinement (all credited as time served), reduction to E-1, forfeitures, and reprimand.
- Appellant spent 239 days in pretrial confinement; the military judge found certain pretrial confinement conditions were unnecessarily severe and awarded 277 days illegal confinement credit (which became excess credit because of time-served sentence).
- DFAS terminated Appellant’s pay on 3 November 2015 after determining his enlistment term expired that date; Appellant claimed a previously approved six-month enlistment extension (entered on a form) should have continued his pay.
- Appellant moved under Article 13, UCMJ, claiming (1) illegal pretrial punishment when his pay was terminated and (2) that the 277 days of illegal-confinement credit should be applied to the punitive discharge; the military judge denied pay relief but awarded the confinement credit and declined to apply excess credit to the discharge.
- The court reviewed whether DFAS’s termination of pay amounted to punitive pretrial punishment and whether setting aside the bad-conduct discharge was required to provide meaningful Article 13 relief.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of pay while in pretrial confinement violated Article 13 (illegal pretrial punishment) | DFAS ignored his valid enlistment extension, intentionally deprived him of pay, and acted with punitive intent | DFAS reasonably concluded Appellant was ineligible for reenlistment/extension; termination of pay followed neutral regulation and served legitimate, nonpunitive objectives | No Article 13 violation; termination of pay was nonpunitive and supported by good‑faith application of reenlistment/extension rules |
| Whether excess illegal-confinement credit (277 days) must be applied to the bad-conduct discharge as meaningful relief under Article 13 | Appellant sought to apply excess credit to set aside the punitive discharge to provide meaningful relief | Government argued discharge was appropriate given offenses; applying credit to discharge would be disproportionate | Court affirmed trial judge: disapproving the bad-conduct discharge would be disproportionate; relief limited to confinement credit already awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fischer, 61 M.J. 415 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (termination of pay at ETS while in pretrial confinement is nonpunitive when tied to neutral criterion)
- United States v. Spaustat, 57 M.J. 256 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (standard for legal review of illegal pretrial punishment credit)
- United States v. Zarbatany, 70 M.J. 169 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (Article 13 relief may range from dismissal to confinement credit to setting aside a punitive discharge; relief must be meaningful but proportionate)