UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Kevin D. NORRIS

Quartermaster Second Class (E-5)

U. S. Navy

Appellant

NMCCA No. 201900289

Special Panel 3

ORDER

Remanding Case for

New Post-Trial Processing

Upon consideration of the record of trial, submitted without assignment of 

error, the Court determined that the convening authority’s [CA] action failed 

to defer automatic forfeiture of pay and allowances1 as required by the plea

agreement. The Court further determined that the military judge failed to 

address the convening authority’s obligation to defer automatic forfeiture of 

pay and allowances in the Statement of Trial Results [STR] and the Entry of 

Judgment [EOJ].

The plea agreement provided as follows, “[t]his agreement constitutes my 

request for, and the convening authority’s approval of deferment of automatic 

forfeitures of pay and allowances from the date automatic forfeitures would 

otherwise become effective under Article 58b, UCMJ, until entry of judgment.”2

The post-trial process regarding this plea agreement provision foundered

at all four stages of review. First, the military judge failed to note the CA’s 

deferment obligation in the STR.3 See Rule for Courts-Martial [R.C.M.]

1101(a)(4) (STR shall specify plea agreement’s punishment limitations).

Second, the staff judge advocate erroneously advised the convening authority 

that Appellant had not made a request for deferment of automatic forfei-

 

1 A general court-martial consisting of a military judge sitting alone sentenced 

Appellant to reduction to E-1, confinement for 6 months, and a bad-conduct discharge. Such a sentence results in the automatic forfeiture of all pay and allowances 

due Appellant during his period of confinement. Article 58b, Uniform Code of 

Military Justice [UCMJ], 10 U.S.C. § 858b.

2 Appellate Exhibit I, paragraph 10c.

3 STR, section E, paragraph 24.
tures.4 Third, the CA declined to act, stating only, “I take no action.”5 See

R.C.M. 1103(d)(2) (CA’s action on deferment request shall be included in the 

record); Manual of the Judge Advocate General § 0153d(5) (CA’s action will 

indicate if automatic forfeitures were deferred). Finally, the military judge 

failed to address the deferment of automatic forfeitures in the EOJ.6 See

R.C.M. 1111(b)(3)(A) (EOJ shall specify any deferment request and CA’s 

action thereon).

We have written frequently to urge scrupulous attention to detail 

throughout all stages of the post-trial process. This case requires us to 

reiterate that urging. 

Accordingly, it is, by the Court, this 30th day of April 2020,

ORDERED:

1. That the Statement of Trial Results is SET ASIDE.

2. That the Convening Authority’s Action is SET ASIDE.

3. That the Entry of Judgment is SET ASIDE.

4. That the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General for 

remand to the Navy-Marine Corps Chief Trial Judge to detail a military 

judge to reaccomplish the Statement of Trial Results in compliance with

R.C.M. 1101. Next, the record will be forwarded to the convening authority to 

reaccomplish the Convening Authority’s Action in compliance with R.C.M.

1110. Thereafter the record will be forwarded to the military judge to 

reaccomplish the Entry of Judgment in accordance with R.C.M. 1111. Finally, 

the record will be returned to this Court for completion of appellate review.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court

Copy to:

NMCCA (51.3); 45; 46; 02

 

4 Post-Trial Action, section A, paragraph 14.

5 Post-Trial Action, section B, paragraph 28.

6 Post-Trial Action, section C (EOJ), paragraph 35.