United States v. Levrie, 201500375

Appellant, a Marine with deployments to Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan, diagnosed with TBI and PTSD and rated 100% disabled by the VA; in process of medical retirement.
While eligible for medical retirement, appellant joined the Devils Diciples motorcycle gang and participated in gang activities despite DOD prohibition.
Appellant pleaded guilty to wrongful gang membership, ten drug-related specifications (possession with intent to distribute and wrongful use of methamphetamine, cocaine, marijuana), and aiding and abetting an assault consummated by a battery in violation of Articles 92, 112a, and 128, UCMJ.
Court-martial adjudged confinement for one year and a bad-conduct discharge; convening authority initially acted, record remanded for corrected post-trial processing, CA re-affirmed action approving the sentence.
Appellant challenged the sentence as inappropriately severe, arguing his combat service, TBI, and PTSD warranted disapproval of the punitive discharge; court independently reviewed sentence under Article 66(c), UCMJ.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the bad-conduct discharge is inappropriately severe	Appellant argued his combat service and service-connected TBI/PTSD mitigated punishment and warranted disapproval of the BCD	Court should defer to sentence and CA; appellant’s offenses were serious, violent, and involved distribution and gang activity	Court affirmed findings and sentence; BCD not inappropriately severe
Whether court should grant clemency by disapproving punitive discharge to avoid collateral consequences	Appellant requested disapproval due to collateral consequences tied to his disabilities	Collateral-consequence-based disapproval is clemency reserved for the CA, not the court	Court declined to act as a clemency-granting body
Whether appellant’s cited precedents require disapproval of the BCD	Appellant relied on cases where PTSD/TBI Marines received discharge relief for largely self-harming conduct	Government distinguished prior cases by pointing to violent, distribution, and gang conduct here	Court found prior cases materially different and declined to follow them
Whether sentence review properly balanced mitigation against offense severity	Appellant argued mitigation (combat, injuries) required greater mercy	Government argued the judge and CA considered mitigation and still imposed appropriate punishment	Court held judge adequately considered mitigation; overall sentence appropriate

United States v. Baier, 60 M.J. 382 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (trial courts must independently review sentence appropriateness under Article 66(c))
United States v. Healy, 26 M.J. 394 (C.M.A. 1988) (courts must analyze the whole record to ensure justice and proper punishment)