United States v. Gordon

18 C.M.A. 611, 18 USCMA 611, 40 C.M.R. 323, 1969 CMA LEXIS 698, 1969 WL 6107
CourtUnited States Court of Military Appeals
DecidedSeptember 26, 1969
DocketNo. 22,270
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 18 C.M.A. 611 (United States v. Gordon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Military Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Gordon, 18 C.M.A. 611, 18 USCMA 611, 40 C.M.R. 323, 1969 CMA LEXIS 698, 1969 WL 6107 (cma 1969).

Opinion

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

A special court-martial convicted the accused of failing to obey a superior commissioned officer, willful disobedience of a noncommissioned officer, sitting down on post, and violation of a ship’s order by wearing tennis shoes instead of black shoes while standing bow sentry. The court sentenced the accused to confinement at hard labor for six months, reduction to pay grade E-l, and a bad-conduct discharge. All of the offenses except the last were set aside by the supervisory authority; he modified the sentence by reducing the confinement to one month.

On further review, a Navy board of review noted that, under the Table of Maximum Punishments, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969, section A, paragraph 127c, footnote 5, the maximum punishment for the approved offense did not include a punitive discharge. However, a majority of the board of review concluded that under section B, Manual, supra, it could approve the bad-conduct discharge as additional punishment because the accused had two previous convictions. Member Faw dissented. In his opinion, dismissal of the “three most serious offenses constituted . . . radical surgery” as to the findings of guilty and “the pettiness” ,of the remaining offense presented a fair possibility that the court-martial might not have added a bad-conduct discharge to the sentence on the basis of the accused’s previous misconduct. We agree with those views. United States v Voorhees, 4 USCMA 509, 531, 16 CMR 83; United States v Kowert, 7 USCMA 678, 23 CMR 142.

The decision of the board of review as to the sentence is reversed, and the sentence is set aside. A rehearing thereof may be ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Harvey
12 M.J. 626 (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review, 1981)
United States v. Castleman
10 M.J. 750 (U S Air Force Court of Military Review, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 C.M.A. 611, 18 USCMA 611, 40 C.M.R. 323, 1969 CMA LEXIS 698, 1969 WL 6107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-gordon-cma-1969.