United States v. Golden, 201600046

Appellant, a sailor aboard USS Iwo Jima, pleaded guilty to unauthorized absence; three specifications of wrongful use of marijuana; two specifications of larceny; one specification of obtaining services by false pretenses; and two specifications of breaking restriction (Articles 86, 112a, 121, 134, UCMJ).
Members acquitted him of three sexual-assault specifications; members still sentenced him for the offenses to which he pleaded guilty.
Misconduct timeline: theft from amnesty box (~$1,164), unauthorized absence, false-pretenses taxi fare, multiple positive marijuana tests, two nonjudicial punishments, two breaches of restriction, and placement in pretrial confinement (226 days credit).
Trial sentencing: government sought 3 years’ confinement and a dishonorable discharge; defense sought a bad-conduct discharge; members were instructed on prior NJP, guilty pleas, and confinement credit. Maximum possible sentence exceeded what was adjudged.
Convening authority approved the sentence except the punitive discharge was ordered executed; Naval Clemency and Parole Board later granted clemency upgrading the dishonorable discharge to other than honorable and ordered release (not material to court’s appropriateness analysis).

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether three years’ confinement and a dishonorable discharge is inappropriately severe	Sentence is too severe given the specific facts, prior NJPs, confinement credit, guilty pleas, and relative seriousness of offenses	Sentence is appropriate given repeated misconduct, seriousness of theft, drug use, breaches of restriction, and continued criminal behavior after NJPs	Court affirmed: sentence is appropriate; reviewing court must give individualized consideration but may not grant clemency and declines to reduce sentence

United States v. Lane, 64 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (standard for de novo sentence appropriateness review)
United States v. Healy, 26 M.J. 394 (C.M.A. 1988) (sentence appropriateness ensures accused gets punishment deserved)
United States v. Snelling, 14 M.J. 267 (C.M.A. 1982) (individualized consideration of offender and offense in sentencing review)
United States v. Nerad, 69 M.J. 138 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (appellate courts may not undertake acts of clemency)
United States v. Baier, 60 M.J. 382 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (affirming sentence where appellant’s repeated misconduct warranted adjudged punishment)
United States v. Olinger, 45 M.J. 644 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1997) (procedural note on effect of clemency and sentence components)