United States v. Hacker, ACM 38972

Appellant was convicted by general court-martial of making false official statements, larceny, and forgery; sentence included a $25,000 fine and 6 months additional confinement if not paid, plus reduction to E-1.
On appeal, Appellant argued the convening authority erred in finding non-indigence as the reason for not paying the fine.
The convening authority ordered the contingent confinement hearing after finding the fine delinquent and directed Appellant to pay by a set date; Appellant failed to pay.
A hearing officer examined Appellant’s finances, assets, indebtedness, and potential penalties, and concluded Appellant failed to show indigence and made no good faith efforts to pay.
The hearing officer noted substantial government debts and identified assets (vehicles, TSP, bank accounts) with limited ability to monetize them, and found minimal efforts to satisfy the fine.
The convening authority adopted the hearing officer’s conclusions; the sentence included six months of confinement in lieu of the fine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the contingent confinement was proper.	Appellant (plaintiff) contends failure to pay due to indigence was not properly considered.	Appellant failed to show indigence; the hearing officer properly weighed assets and debts.	Contingent confinement affirmed; no abuse of discretion.
Whether the hearing officer used an appropriate indigence standard.	Hearing officer used an undefined, subjective standard and improper asset values.	No required external indigence standard; record supports no-indigence finding.	No error; indigence not shown; fairness preserved.

United States v. Palmer, 59 M.J. 362 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (due process in contingent confinement proceedings; burden on accused)
United States v. Phillips, 64 M.J. 410 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard in converting fine to confinement)