Check that date.

UPDATED 29082025.

After you read Goins (or before), read United States v. Torres Gonzales, decided 29 August 2025, by AFCCA. AFCCA said the following.

In regard to issue (1) we agree with Appellant and set aside his finding of guilty for failure to obey a lawful general order. As to the remaining assignments of error, we find no error that materially prejudiced Appellant’s rights.

We affirm the remaining findings of guilty and sentence, as reassessed Appellant argues that his finding of guilty for use of Delta-8 THC was factually and legally insufficient because, in part, the regulation that Appellant was convicted of violating was obsolete. The Government agrees that Appellant’s finding of guilty for this offense was legally insufficient and the conviction should be set aside and dismissed with prejudice. We agree.

So, we have two Services where the GO was not in force, the Appellant was convicted for violating that "order," its not caught until an appellate defense counsel catches it, and the Government properly concedes.

[W]e find appellant's conviction for violating a general order is legally and factually insufficient because, as the government concedes. the general order was rescinded and no longer in effect at the time of appellant's offenses.

United States v. Goins, __ M.J. ___ (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2025). Briefs. Goins had also been convicted of one sexual assault of a child, three specifications of sexual contact with a child, one specification of indecent communication to a child, and obstruction of justice.

Was the issue identified at the Article 32? Or was this a paper drill, thus missing an arguably important issue?

Note that this was a guilty plea without a plea agreement. The sentencing case suggests why there was no pretrial agreement. The prosecution requested 25 years' confinement and the defense 18 months. The MJ gave 42 months "total," of which the segmented sentence for the orders violation was four months.

It has been many, many, many years since I was taught that the first thing you do when an order, regulation, or Memorandum, violation is charged is to verify it was in force at the time of the conduct, that it was published correctly (for GOs) [Check out United States v. Tolkach, 14 M.J. 239 (C.M.A. 1982); United States v. Jackson, No. ACM 39955, 2022 CCA LEXIS 300 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. May 23, 2022) rev. denied 82 M.J. 425 (C.A.A.F. 2022); United States v. Henderson, No. ACM 40419, 2025 CCA LEXIS 172, at *18 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 18 Apr. 2025). These cases focus on the "publication" aspect.]

Is the regulation punitive (or the relevant parts are punitive) (Check out United States v. Shavrnoch, 49 M.J. 334 (C.A.A.F. 1998). The practice then, and I suppose now, is that the TC would ask the MJ to take judicial notice of the general order or regulation. So, when shifting to being a TC or SJA, guess what we did? The Order in Torres Gonzales said, the memorandum “becomes void after one year has elapsed from the date of this Memorandum, or upon publication of an Interim Change or rewrite of DAF-MAN 44-197, whichever is earlier.” This is similar to what you might see in Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard orders--an automatic expiration date. You also may have noticed similar issues with MPOs.

Cf. para. 18.c.(b), at IV-27, MCM (2024 ed.) "a general order or regulation issued by a commander with authority under Article 92(1) retains its character as a general order or regulation when another officer takes command, until it expires by its own terms or is rescinded by separate action, even if it is issued by an officer who is a general or flag officer in command and command is assumed by another officer who is not a general or flag officer."

The electronic benchbook lists the first elements as: (1) That there was in effect a certain lawful general (order) (regulation), to wit: (state the date and specific source of the alleged general order or regulation and quote the order or regulation or the specific portion thereof)[.] Note 5., copies the MCM "A general (order) (regulation) issued by a commander with authority to do so retains its character as a general (order) (regulation) when another officer takes command, until it expires by its own terms or is rescinded by separate action."