Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Bourgette

U S Air Force Court of Military Review

Decided January 26, 1989No. ACM S27701 (f rev)Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Judge BLOMMERS

(concurring/dissenting in part):

I agree with almost everything in Chief Judge Hodgson’s opinion for the majority except its ultimate conclusion that Airman Bourgette “was prejudiced to some degree” as the result of the post-trial delay in the processing of her case. With all due respect, in my judgment there is no showing of prejudice based upon the record and documentation submitted except the appellant’s unsubstantiated assertions that she could not obtain post-trial employment and was denied military medical benefits for a two-month period extending between the first and…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. United States v. KingU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1984

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API