2008 edition - Fort Sam Houston - U.S. Army

Nonjud. Pun. 5. APPENDIX 24
ing an appropriate punishment and make the implementation of
that punishment more efficient and understandable.
1987 Amendment: Subparagraph e was redesignated as subparagraph
g and new subparagraphs e and f were added to implement
the amendments to Articles 2 and 3, UCMJ, contained in
the “Military Justice Amendments of 1986,” tit. VIII, § 804, National
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1987, Pub. L. No.
99–661, 100 Stat. 3905 (1986).
1990 Amendment: Subsection (c)(8) was amended to incorporate
the statutory expansion of jurisdiction over reserve component
personnel provided in the Military Justice Amendments of
1990, tit. XIII, § 1303, National Defense Authorization Act of
Fiscal Year 1990, Pub. L. 101–189, 103 Stat. 1352 (1989).
6. Suspension, mitigation, remission, and setting
aside
This paragraph is taken from Article 15, paragraph 134 of
MCM 1969 (Rev.), and service regulations. See e.g., AR 27–10,
paras. 3–23 through 3–28 (1 Sep. 1982); JAGMAN sec. 0101;
AFR 111–9, para 7 (31 Aug 1979). Subparagraph a dealing with
suspension was expanded to: require a violation of the code
during the period of suspension as a basis for vacation action, and
to explain that vacation action is not in itself nonjudicial punishment
and does not preclude the imposition of nonjudicial punishment
for the offenses upon which the vacation action was based.
S u b p a r a g r a p h a ( 4 ) p r o v i d e s a p r o c e d u r e f o r v a c a t i o n o f s u s -
pended nonjudicial punishment. This procedure parallels the proc
e d u r e f o u n d s u f f i c i e n t t o m a k e a d m i s s i b l e i n c o u r t s - m a r t i a l
A24-2
records of vacation of suspended nonjudicial punishment. United
States v. Covington, 10 M.J. 64 (C.M.A. 1980).
1990 Amendment: A new subsection a(4) was added to permit
punishment imposed under Article 15 to be suspended based on
conditions in addition to violations of the UCMJ. This affords the
same flexibility given to authorities who suspend punishment
adjudged at court-martial under R.C.M. 1108(c). Experience has
demonstrated the necessity and utility of such flexibility in the
nonjudicial punishment context.
7. Appeals
This paragraph is taken from paragraph 135 of MCM, 1969
( R e v . ) a n d s e r v i c e r e g u l a t i o n s d e a l i n g w i t h a p p e a l s . S e e A R
27–10, paras. 3–29 through 3–35 (1 Sep. 1982); JAGMAN 0101;
AFR 111–9, para. 8 (31 Aug. 1981). Subparagraph (d) requires an
appeal to be filed within 5 days or the right to appeal will be
waived, absent unusual circumstances. This is a reduction from
the 15 days provided for in paragraph 135 and is intended to
expedite the appeal process. Subparagraph f(2) is intended to
promote sound practice, that is, the superior authority should
consider many factors when reviewing an appeal, and not be
limited to matters submitted by the appellant or the officer imposing
the punishment. Subparagraph f(3) provides for “additional
proceedings” should a punishment be set aside due to a procedural
error. This is consistent with court-martial practice and
intended to ensure that procedural errors do not prevent appropriate
disposition of a disciplinary matter.
8. Records of nonjudicial punishment
This paragraph is taken from Article 15(g) and paragraph
133c of MCM, 1969 (Rev.).