United States v. Meiers, 201600309

Appellant, a Navy corpsman, took previously issued IFAK medical supplies from an Individual Issue Facility (IIF) Tri‑Wall container and sold them for cash during undercover transactions in Feb–Mar 2015.
Transactions: three undercover sales totaling multiple hundreds of items (tourniquets, gauze, chest seals, dressings); appellant was arrested during a buy‑bust and additional items were seized from his home.
Trial counsel amended the alleged larceny value from $200,000 to $77,000; government introduced an official price list (Prosecution Exhibit 23) and witness testimony to support value.
Defense moved for acquittal on value grounds; the military judge denied the motion, finding some evidence the property’s value exceeded $500 and instructing members on how to determine value using the official price list and condition evidence.
Members convicted appellant of violating Articles 108 and 121, UCMJ; they sentenced him to 18 months confinement, reduction to E‑1, a $10,000 fine, and a dishonorable discharge.
Appellant appealed only the sentence as inappropriately severe, arguing the value evidence was inflated (replacement new‑item prices) and that sentencing argument overstated loss.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of value evidence for larceny (over $500)	Value evidence was inflated (new replacement prices) and did not reflect fair market value at time of theft/sale; thus value element uncertain	Official price list plus witness testimony and condition of items provided some evidence of value; members instructed on how to weigh list vs condition	Denied. Court found government introduced some evidence of value; military judge properly instructed members on determining value
Appropriateness of sentence (severity; dishonorable discharge; $10,000 fine; 18 months confinement)	Sentence is inappropriately severe given inflated value evidence and relatively low resale prices in undercover transactions; urged reduction of confinement, disapproval of discharge and fine	Repeated, intentional abuse of position for profit; multiple transactions, intent to continue, significant aggregate loss to government; adjudged sentence below statutory maximum and appropriate	Affirmed. Court exercised de novo review and found individualized consideration supports the adjudged sentence

United States v. Lane, 64 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (standard for de novo appellate sentence appropriateness review)
United States v. Healy, 26 M.J. 394 (C.M.A. 1988) (describing sentence appropriateness as judicial function to assure accused gets deserved punishment)
United States v. Snelling, 14 M.J. 267 (C.M.A. 1982) (directing individualized consideration of offender, offense, and seriousness)
United States v. Nerad, 69 M.J. 138 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (appellate court may not act as clemency board when reviewing sentence)