United States v. Waymel, 201700112

Appellant, a Marine with nine years’ service and an Afghanistan deployment, pleaded guilty at a general court-martial to two specifications of violating a station general order (failure to register two firearms on base) and one specification of conduct unbecoming an officer.
While separated from his wife, appellant developed an intimate relationship with Ms. DS, who remained married to a Marine staff sergeant; the relationship was publicly visible but many colleagues and neighbors did not know appellant’s rank or Ms. DS’s marital status.
Appellant moved into Ms. DS’s on-base residence during a medical recovery and stored an AR-15 (in his car) and a .380 pistol (in the house) without registering them with the Provost Marshal’s Office in violation of base rule(s).
After an argument, officers were summoned, learned of the unregistered firearms and the relationship, and appellant was arrested and held in pretrial confinement until court-martial.
The military judge sentenced appellant to 120 days’ confinement and a dismissal; the convening authority approved the sentence but ordered execution of the sentence except for the dismissal.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Government/CA's Argument	Held
Whether the dismissal portion of the sentence is appropriate under Article 66(c) review	Dismissal is inappropriately severe given appellant’s service, mitigation, and nature of offenses	The adjudged sentence, including dismissal, was proper punishment for the offenses	Court affirmed findings and 120 days’ confinement but concluded the dismissal was inappropriately severe and must not be approved (majority)
Standard for sentence appropriateness on appeal	Appellant relied on individualized consideration and proportionality principles	Government relied on deference to the military judge’s sentencing determination	Court applied Article 66(c) broader review and individualized consideration (Healy/Snelling principles) in assessing appropriateness

United States v. Baier, 60 M.J. 382 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (Article 66(c) review is broader than merely reducing sentences that cry out for reduction)
United States v. Healy, 26 M.J. 394 (C.M.A. 1988) (sentence appropriateness requires individualized consideration of offender and offense)
United States v. Snelling, 14 M.J. 267 (C.M.A. 1982) (sentence review must consider nature/seriousness of offense and character of offender)
United States v. Mamaluy, 27 C.M.R. 176 (C.M.A. 1959) (early articulation of individualized sentencing consideration)