United States v. Williams
201600197
| N.M.C.C.A. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- Appellant, a Master Sergeant (E-8) with ~21 years’ service at MCAS Miramar, held a senior enlisted leadership role in 3d MAW’s G-4.
- An investigation into a travel claim (possible false non‑availability letter) led NCIS to uncover multiple adulterous and fraternization relationships between the appellant and several women (including a superior officer and subordinates), plus instructions to a civilian mistress to lie.
- Charges tried by a panel with enlisted representation: convictions for violating a general order (fraternization), false official statement, larceny, multiple adultery specifications, and obstruction of justice; acquitted of one false‑writing charge.
- Sentence: reprimand, reduction to E-1, six months’ confinement, and a bad‑conduct discharge; convening authority approved sentence except for executing the punitive discharge.
- Appellant appealed, arguing sentence disparity with other E-8 cases and that the punitive discharge was disproportionate given his service and retirement consequences.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentence/forum lacked uniformity with other senior Marines | Appellant: his sentence (including BCD) is disproportionately severe compared to other E-8s charged with similar offenses; seeks relief to preserve retirement | Government: comparison cases are not "closely related"; differences in facts, disposition, and pre/post‑trial agreements explain disparate outcomes | Court: No closely related cases shown; appellant failed dual burden (closely related + highly disparate); denial of relief for disparity |
| Whether punitive discharge was inappropriate given retirement loss | Appellant: long service and financial impact warrant avoiding punitive discharge | Government: members had full sentencing evidence on retirement impact; offense seriousness supports punitive discharge | Court: Members heard mitigation, retirement impact, and were properly instructed; BCD and sentence are appropriate; no material prejudice |
| Whether judge’s instructed standard for conviction was plain error | Appellant: military judge’s instruction on "firmly convinced" was erroneous | Government: instruction aligns with controlling precedent | Court: Issue resolved by superior court in United States v. McClour; summary rejection |
| Overall sentence appropriateness under Article 66(c) | Appellant: career merits and consensual nature minimize culpability | Government: rank, leadership role, repeated misconduct, theft, obstruction, and erosion of unit trust justify sentence | Court: On de novo review, sentence is appropriate considering nature of offenses and offender’s character; relief would be clemency and is declined |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Durant, 55 M.J. 258 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (some disparity tolerated; sentencing is individualized)
- United States v. Ballard, 20 M.J. 282 (C.M.A. 1985) (generally avoid sentence comparisons except for closely related cases)
- United States v. Wacha, 55 M.J. 266 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (require sentence comparison only in rare, closely related cases)
- United States v. Lacy, 50 M.J. 286 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (appellant must show closely related cases and high disparity)
- United States v. Kelly, 40 M.J. 558 (N.M.C.M.R. 1994) (what makes cases closely related: similar offenses or common scheme)
- United States v. Roach, 69 M.J. 17 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (compare adjudged sentences, not approved or agreement results)
- United States v. Noble, 50 M.J. 293 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (disparity may stem from initial disposition differences)
- United States v. Baier, 60 M.J. 382 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (appellate duty to review sentence appropriateness)
- United States v. Lane, 64 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (de novo review of sentence appropriateness)
- United States v. Healy, 26 M.J. 394 (C.M.A. 1988) (sentence appropriateness ensures accused gets deserved punishment)
- United States v. Snelling, 14 M.J. 267 (C.M.A. 1982) (consider nature/seriousness of offense and character of offender)
- United States v. Luster, 55 M.J. 67 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (appellant must be allowed to substantially present financial impact of punitive discharge to members)