Application for review at the CCA

United States v. Howard is an example of the new practice of appeals in subjurisdictional cases. We will continue to refer to cases where the accused does not qualify for UCMJ art. 66 review as subjurisdictional cases.

[T]he court-martial members sentenced Applicant to reduction to E-5, forfeiture of $500.00 per month for three months, and confinement for 30 days.

The convening authority approved the sentence and ordered it executed.2 On 15 July 2020, a judge advocate reviewed the case, in accordance with Article 65, Uniform Code of Military Justice [UCMJ],3 and determined that the court-martial had jurisdiction over Applicant and each offense of which he was found guilty, that each specification of which he was found guilty stated an offense, and that the sentence was legal. The judge advocate also responded to each allegation of error raised by the Accused, finding no error.

On 17 September 2020, Applicant applied for review by the Judge Advocate General, in accordance with Article 69(a), UCMJ. On 20 October 2021, the Judge Advocate General denied the Application for Relief. On 20 December 2021, Applicant timely submitted to this Court an Application for Review of the Judge Advocate General’s Action, in accordance with Article 69(d)(1)(B), UCMJ. 

The convening authority suspended the $500.00 forfeiture for three months, provided SO1 Howard maintain an allotment for his wife in the amount of $500.00 for three months. 10 U.S.C. § 865. United States v. Howard, NMCCA No. 202000251 Order Denying Application for Review.

We have reviewed the Action taken by the Judge Advocate General in this case and the Application for Review, and have determined that the Application does not demonstrate a substantial basis for concluding that the Action under review constituted prejudicial error.