UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

MULLIGAN, HERRING and BURTON 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Private First Class CHAD A. BETTENCOURT 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20140284 

Headquarters, 1st Cavalry Division 

Wade N. Faulkner, Military Judge 

Colonel R. Tideman Penland, Jr., Staff Judge Advocate (pretrial) 

Lieutenant Colonel Alison C. Martin, Staff Judge Advocate (post-trial) 

For Appellant: Colonel Kevin Boyle, JA; Captain Patrick A. Crocker, JA; Captain 

Payum Doroodian, JA (on brief). 

For Appellee: Colonel Mark H. Sydenham, JA; Major Daniel D. Derner, JA; 

Captain Christopher A. Clausen, JA (on brief). 

21 January 2016 

---------------------------------- 

SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

----------------------------------

Judge BURTON: 

 A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, in 

accordance with his pleas, of one specification of conspiracy to commit larceny of 

military property, one specification of damaging military property, one specification 

of larceny of military property and one specification of housebreaking in violation 

of Article 81, 108, 121 and 130, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 

881, 908, 921, 930 (2012) [hereinafter UCMJ]. The court sentenced appellant to a 

bad-conduct discharge, confinement for eighteen months, and reduction to the grade 

of E-1. In accordance with a pretrial agreement, the convening authority approved 

the bad-conduct discharge, confinement for eight months and reduction to the grade 

of E-1. 

 This case is before us for review pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ. Appellant 

raises one allegation of error which merits discussion and relief. Appellant asks this 
BETTENCOURT—ARMY 20140284 

2

court to provide appropriate relief to remedy the dilatory post-trial processing of his 

case. We agree that relief is appropriate in this case and grant thirty days 

confinement credit. 

LAW AND DISCUSSION 

The convening authority took action 293 days after the sentence was 

adjudged, all of which are attributable to the government. The record in this case 

consists of two volumes, and the trial transcript is 97 pages. Although we find no 

due process violation in the post-trial processing of appellant’s case, we must still 

review the appropriateness of the sentence in light of the unjustified dilatory posttrial processing. UCMJ art. 66(c); United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219, 224 

(C.A.A.F. 2002) (“[Pursuant to Article 66(c), UCMJ, service courts are] required to 

determine what findings and sentence ‘should be approved,’ based on all the facts 

and circumstances reflected in the record, including the unexplained and 

unreasonable post-trial delay.”). See generally United States v. Toohey, 63 M.J. 

353, 362-63 (C.A.A.F. 2006); United States v. Ney, 68 M.J. 613, 617 (Army Ct. 

Crim. App. 2010); United States v. Collazo, 53 M.J. 721, 727 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 

2000). 

It took 221 days to transcribe the record of trial and to serve the record of 

trial on appellant’s defense counsel, and seven days for the military judge to 

authenticate the record of trial in this case. It also took sixty-seven days for this 

court to receive the record of trial after action. The government provided no 

explanation for the delay in either transcribing the record of trial or for the delay in 

docketing appellant’s case with this court. The government concurs that appellant is 

entitled to some relief. The unexplained delay between announcement of sentence 

and action is simply too long, and could “adversely affect the public’s perception of 

the fairness and integrity of the military justice system . . . .” Ney, 68 M.J. at 617. 

Thus, we find relief is appropriate under the facts of this case. 

CONCLUSION 

Upon consideration of the entire record, the findings of guilty are 

AFFIRMED. Given the dilatory post-trial processing, however, we AFFIRM only so 

much of the sentence as provides for a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for seven 

months, and reduction to the grade of E-1. All rights, privileges, and property, of 

which appellant has been deprived by virtue of this decision setting aside portions of 

the sentence, are ordered restored. See UCMJ arts. 58b(c), and 75(a). 

Senior Judge MULLIGAN and Judge HERRING concur. 
BETTENCOURT—ARMY 20140284 

3

FOR THE COURT: 

 JOHN P. TAITT 

Deputy Clerk of Court 

JOHN P. TAITT 

Deputy Clerk of Court 

FOR THE COURT: