## UNITED STATES ARMY COUR T OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before MULLIGAN, HERRING and BURTON Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v. Private First Clas s CHAD A. BETTENCOURT United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20140284

Headquarters, 1st Ca valry Division Wade N. Faulkner, Military Judge

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

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

For Appellant: Colone l Kevin Boyle, JA; Captain Patrick A. Crocker, JA; Captain Payum Doroodian, JA (on brief).

For Appellee: Colonel Mark H. Sydenh am, JA; Major Daniel D. Derner, JA; Captain Christophe r 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 cons piracy to commit larceny of military property, one specifi cation of damaging military property, one specification of larceny of military prop erty 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 UC MJ]. The court senten ced appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for ei ghteen months, and redu ction to the grade

of E-1. In accordance with a pretrial agreement, th e convening authority approved the bad-conduct discharge, confinement for eight months and redu ction to the grade

of E-1.

This case is before us for review pursuant to Ar ticle 66, UCMJ. Appellant raises one allegati on of error which merits discussion and relief. Appellant asks thisBETTENCOURT—ARMY 20140284

2 court to provide appropriate re lief to remedy the dilatory post-trial processing of his case. We agree that relief is appropri ate in this case an d grant thirty days

confinement credit.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

The convening authority took action 293 days after the sentence was adjudged, all of wh ich are attributable to the government. The record in this case consists of two volumes, and the trial tran script is 97 pages. Although we find no due process violation in the post-trial proc essing of appellant’s case, we must still review the appropriateness of the sentence in light of th e 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 an d sentence ‘should be approved,’ base d on all the facts

and circumstances reflected in the r ecord, including th e 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 (A rmy Ct. Crim. App. 2000).

It took 221 days to transc ribe the record of trial and to serve the record of trial on appellant’s defense counsel, a nd seven days for th e military judge to

authenticate the record of tr ial in this case. It also took sixty-se ven days for this

court to receive the record of trial after action. The gover nment provided no explanation for the delay in either transcribi ng 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 betwee n announcement of sentence and action is simply too lon g, and could “adversely affect the public’s perception of the fairness and integrit y of the military jus tice system . . . .” Ney , 68 M.J. at 617. Thus, we find relief is appropri ate under the facts of this case.

CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of th e entire record, the fi ndings of guilty are AFFIRMED. Given the dilatory post-trial proces sing, however, we AFFIRM only so much of the sentence as provides for a ba d-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 sett ing aside portions of the sentence, are or dered 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: