United States v. Workneh, ACM 38928

Background

Appellant, a Deputy Disbursement Officer at Travis AFB, abused his authority to withdraw and cash government funds; he stole $150,000 in cash from a vault and cashed fraudulent Treasury checks to obtain an additional $240,000, totaling $420,000.
He pleaded guilty at a general court-martial to absence without leave, larceny, and bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344(2)); sentenced to dishonorable discharge, six years confinement, total forfeitures, reduction to E‑1, and a $42,000 fine with two years contingent confinement if unpaid.
A pretrial agreement (PTA) limited approval of confinement to seven years; at trial counsel and the military judge discussed limiting contingent confinement to one year to comply with the PTA.
Appellant raised on appeal three issues: (1) alleged deficient providence for the § 1344(2) plea (no material misrepresentation); (2) whether his gambling addiction required inquiry into lack of mental responsibility; and (3) whether the convening authority failed to honor a material PTA term by approving six years plus two years contingent confinement and not specifying a fine due date.
The court found the bank fraud plea provident (the fraudulent “emergency cash” memoranda were material misrepresentations/ concealments); found no basis to treat pathological gambling as rendering Appellant unable to appreciate wrongfulness absent evidence; but held the convening authority’s action defective for failing to provide a fine due date and for approving two years contingent confinement contrary to the parties’ on‑the‑record understanding of one year.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether guilty plea to bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344(2)) was provident given alleged lack of material misrepresentation	Appellant: He had statutory authority to issue/cash Treasury checks; presenting checks (or nondisclosure of personal use) was not a material misrepresentation	Government: He used fraudulent memoranda and concealment—representations that funds were for an Air Force paying-agent emergency—which were material and used to obtain bank funds	Court: Plea provident — fraudulent memoranda/ concealment were material and necessary to obtain funds, satisfying § 1344(2) elements
Whether military judge should have reopened plea inquiry for lack of mental responsibility based on gambling addiction	Appellant: Repeated references and submitted literature on pathological gambling raised a possible defense that he couldn’t appreciate nature/wrongfulness of acts	Government: No evidence gambling produced a severe mental disease/defect or impaired capacity to appreciate nature or wrongfulness; mere possibility isn’t enough	Court: No abuse — no evidence gambling met the legal standard for lack of mental responsibility; Care inquiry showed Appellant appreciated wrongfulness
Whether convening authority honored PTA term limiting confinement to seven years when approving additional contingent confinement	Appellant: Parties understood contingent confinement would be capped at one year consistent with PTA; approval of two years breaches PTA	Government: Action approved sentence as adjudged (subject to PTA limit)	Court: Convening authority’s action defective — exceeded parties’ on‑record understanding by approving two years contingent confinement; directed new convening authority action
Whether convening authority provided required notification for fine (due date) to enforce contingent confinement	Appellant: No specific due date was included; enforcement of contingent confinement requires a due date	Government: (Implicitly) Action served as notification	Court: Defective — action lacked specific due date as required by instruction; directed corrected action

Key Cases Cited

Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (materiality standard for false statements)
United States v. Colton, 231 F.3d 890 (4th Cir.) (distinguishing nondisclosure from concealment; concealment can support fraud)
United States v. Inabinette, 66 M.J. 320 (C.A.A.F.) (standard for reviewing providence of guilty pleas)
United States v. Murphy, 74 M.J. 302 (C.A.A.F.) (accused must understand and describe facts establishing guilt)
United States v. Falcon, 65 M.J. 386 (C.A.A.F.) (pathological gambling evidence at sentencing does not necessarily require reopening plea inquiry for lack of mental responsibility)
United States v. Shaw, 64 M.J. 460 (C.A.A.F.) (affirmative defense of lack of mental responsibility standard)
United States v. Lundy, 63 M.J. 299 (C.A.A.F.) (interpretation and enforcement of pretrial agreements reviewed de novo/mixed question)
United States v. Perron, 58 M.J. 78 (C.A.A.F.) (remedies when government breaches material PTA term)