Case ID: cma_8/html/0092-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "GEORGE W. LatimeR, Judge: Quinn, Chief Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES, Appellee v BERNARD GILES, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant
    8 USCMA 92, 23 CMR 316
    No. 9587
    Decided June 21, 1957
    
      First Lieutenant David N. Gorman argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With Mm on the brief were Major Frank C. Stetson and First Lieutenant Gene E. Overbeck.
    
    
      First Lieutenant Arnold I. Burns argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief was Lieutenant Colonel Thomas J. Newton.
    
   Opinion of the Court

GEORGE W. LatimeR, Judge:

The accused was charged with, and convicted of, an offense of absence without leave from July 31, 1956, to August 1, 1956, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 886, and the crimes of assault with intent to commit rape and breaking restriction, in violation of Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 934. He was sentenced to dishonorable discharge, confinement at hard labor for nine months, and forfeiture of $40.00 a month for a like period. The findings and sentence were affirmed by the convening authority and a board of review. The accused petitioned this Court for review, asserting that the sentence was inconsistent and illegal for it combined a dishonorable discharge with a partial forfeiture of pay and allowances. We granted the petition for review for the reason that a similar question was pending before the Court in the ease of United States v Cleckley, 8 USCMA 83, 23 CMR 307. Subsequently, at the request of counsel for both parties, the two cases were consolidated for argument. The principles we announce in that decision, this day decided, are dispositive of this appeal, and we therefore affirm the decision of the board of review.

Judge FeRGUSON concurs.

Quinn, Chief Judge

(dissenting)’:

I dissent for the reasons set out in my dissenting opinion in United States v Cleckley, decided this date.