United States v. Heil

I believe that the sale of marihuana committed by appellant was service connected, and I would affirm his conviction.

This case is significantly different from United States v. Alef, 3 M.J. 414 (C.M.A. 1977). In this case, unlike AM, the initial negotiations for the sale took place on post. The analysis employed by the majority has the result of allowing a drug pusher to defeat court-martial jurisdiction by conducting his on-post drug dealings through an intermediary. Even disregarding Pittman’s hearsay statement that appellant was the owner of the marihuana in question, I find sufficient…