United States v. Zarbatany
2011 CAAF LEXIS 555
| C.A.A.F. | 2011Background
- Appellant was tried by general court-martial at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, pleading to two unauthorized absence specifications and two cocaine and two marijuana specifications under Articles 86 and 112a, UCMJ.
- Military judge found pretrial confinement violated MOA between Elmendorf and ACC and AFI 31-205, awarding 595 days of confinement credit for Article 13 violations (4:1 excess credit plus 1:1 credit).
- Confinement conditions included near-daily 23-hour lockdown, limited and non-contact visits, denial of mental health care, and lack of unit visitation, among other deficiencies.
- Confinement credits were applied against the adjudged confinement of 180 days; the convening authority disapproved forfeitures but approved other portions of the sentence, including a bad-conduct discharge and reduction to E-1.
- The United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the sentence but the Court remanded for new Article 66(e) review to determine if meaningful relief beyond confinement credit was warranted.
- The Supreme Court granted review to consider (1) whether Article 13 relief may extend beyond confinement credit against punishments listed in R.C.M. 305(k), and (2) whether meaningful relief was required given Appellant’s 595 days of Article 13 relief versus 180 days adjudged confinement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is R.C.M. 305(k) the sole remedy for Article 13 violations? | Zarbatany argues R.C.M. 305(k) limits relief to listed punishments and excludes punitive discharge. | USAF CCA held confinement credit cannot be applied to a punitive discharge under 305(k). | No, not exclusive; meaningful relief may be available beyond 305(k). |
| Must meaningful relief be awarded in every Article 13 case? | Zarbatany contends that excess Article 13 relief should yield additional relief beyond confinement credit. | Government argues relief is subsumed within appropriateness review. | Meaningful relief is required when warranted by context and not disproportionate. |
| Did the lower court properly determine meaningful relief on this record? | CCA failed to determine proportionality or alternative relief beyond confinement credit. | CCA reviewed sentence appropriateness with regard to pretrial confinement punishment. | Remanded for new Article 66(c) review to assess whether additional relief is warranted or disproportionate. |
| May appellate court set aside a punitive discharge as meaningful relief for Article 13 violations? | Nelson-like approach could set aside punitive discharge to remedy Article 13 injury. | Nelson is distinguishable and 305(k) generally limits remedies. | Not decided here; remand to assess tailored relief; the majority did not decide the Nelson-like remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Spaustat, 57 M.J. 256 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (confinement credit and Article 13 relief framework)
- United States v. King, 61 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (Article 13 limits and relief considerations)
- United States v. Rosendahl, 53 M.J. 344 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (meaning of relief and confinement credit limits)
- United States v. Josey, 58 M.J. 105 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (RCM 305(k) applicability and relief types)
- Nelson v. United States, 18 C.M.A. 177 (C.M.A. 1969) (meaningful relief and Nelson framework for Article 13 violations)
- United States v. Crawford, 62 M.J. 411 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (non-confinement relief when maximum custody is inappropriate)