United States v. Monarque, ACM S32412

Appellant, a Traffic Management Office employee, submitted two Do-It-Yourself (DITY) move packages in October 2014 containing falsified weight tickets and was paid for both moves.
Approximately 6½ years earlier (May 20, 2009) Appellant received nonjudicial punishment (Article 15) for stealing a credit card and related misconduct; that Article 15 was more than five years old at time of referral of the 2015 charges.
At sentencing the government offered the Air Force Form 3070A (Record of Nonjudicial Punishment) into evidence and defense counsel did not object; an Enlisted Performance Report referencing the Article 15 was also admitted without objection.
Appellant pleaded guilty to larceny and fraud offenses; the approved sentence was a bad-conduct discharge, three months confinement, and reduction to E-1.
On appeal Appellant argued the military judge erred by admitting the Article 15 at sentencing in violation of R.C.M. 1001(b)(2) and Air Force rules limiting admission of Article 15s older than five years.
The court analyzed waiver versus forfeiture (plain error), applying multi-factor waiver guidance from CAAF precedent, and concluded defense affirmatively waived appellate challenge to admission of the Article 15; alternatively, admission did not constitute plain error affecting substantial rights.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the military judge erred by admitting a >5‑year‑old Article 15 at sentencing	Admission violated R.C.M. 1001(b)(2) and Air Force limits; Article 15 was inadmissible	Defense counsel expressly declined to object at sentencing; R.C.M. 1001 objections not asserted are waived; even if forfeited, any error was not plain or prejudicial	Court held Appellant waived the right to challenge admission; alternatively, no plain error affecting substantial rights; affirmed findings and sentence

United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982) (guidance on sentencing evidence and appellate review)
United States v. Campos, 67 M.J. 330 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (distinguishing waiver from forfeiture; failure to object can be waiver when defense considered evidence and declined to object)
United States v. Harcrow, 66 M.J. 154 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (addressing waiver vs. forfeiture of confrontation rights and plain error review)
United States v. Gammons, 51 M.J. 169 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (finding waiver where defense used nonjudicial punishment evidence and did not object)
United States v. Gladue, 67 M.J. 311 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (waiver extinguishes claim on appeal; contrasts with forfeiture)
United States v. Marsh, 70 M.J. 101 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (plain‑error standard for military appellate review)