United States v. Vibal
U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review
1Per curiam
We have carefully examined what purports to be the record of trial, the assignments of error1, and the Government’s reply thereto. We note that the record before us is unauthenticated and that the transcript of the proceedings in revision was authenticated well after the staff judge advocate submitted his recommendation to the convening authority and the convening authority took his action. A new staff judge advocate’s recommendation and convening authority’s action are, therefore, required. See United States v. Credit, 4 M.J. 118 (C.M.A.1977); United States v. Cruz-Rijos, 1 M.J. 429 (C.M.A.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. Cruz-RijosUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1976
- United States v. CreditUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1977
- United States v. BatisteU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1992
- United States v. CarmichaelU.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review · 1980