Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. McGary

U.S. Army Court of Military Review

Decided December 10, 1981No. SPCM 15950Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partO’Donnell, Judge

I agree with the majority that the multiplicity issue was waived. I differ, however, as to the admissibility of the record of previous nonjudieial punishment.

Although Army Regulation 27-10 is not exactly a paragon of precision in the matter, I conclude that it requires the judge advocate who acted on an appeal from punishment imposed under Article 15 of the Code to make an entry in Block 8 of DA Form 2627. This, I believe was the position taken by the Court of Military Appeals in United States v. Guerrero, 10 M.J. 52 (C.M.A.1980), as well as by Chief Judge Everett in United States v. Mack, 9…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United States v. MackUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1980
  2. United States v. HeflinUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1975
  3. United States v. HugginsU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1981
  4. United States v. EngleUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1953
  5. United States v. GuerreroUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1980

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API