UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

F.D. MITCHELL, J.A. FISCHER, D.C. KING

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JOSEPH D. BATES

SERGEANT (E-5), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 201400447

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 14 Aug 2014.

Military Judge: Col M.B. Richardson, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding General, Marine Corps 

Recruit Depot, Western Recruiting Region, San Diego, CA.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: Maj J.E. Ming, USMC.

For Appellant: LT Christopher McMahon, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: CAPT Ross L. Leuning, JAGC, USN; LT Ann E. 

Dingle, JAGC, USN.

28 July 2015

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

OPINION OF THE COURT 

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

THIS OPINION DOES NOT SERVE AS BINDING PRECEDENT, BUT MAY BE CITED AS 

PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY UNDER NMCCA RULE OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 18.2.

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to his pleas, a military judge sitting as a 

general court martial convicted the appellant of five 

specifications of violating a lawful general order, one 

specification of dereliction of duty, one specification of 

willful damage to government property of a value of less than 

$500.00, and two specifications of adultery, in violation of 

Articles 92, 108, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 
2

U.S.C. §§ 892, 908, and 934, respectively. At trial, the 

appellant was acquitted of the charges to which he entered pleas 

of not guilty, namely: four specifications of sexual assault and 

two specifications of abusive sexual contact in violation of 

Article 120, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 920. 

The military judge sentenced the appellant to reduction to 

pay-grade E-1, total forfeiture of pay and allowance, a $1,000 

fine, confinement for 12 months, and a bad-conduct discharge. 

The convening authority (CA) approved the sentence as adjudged 

but, pursuant to the pretrial agreement, suspended confinement 

in excess of six months. 

On appeal, the appellant alleges that a bad-conduct 

discharge is inappropriately severe. After careful examination 

of the record of trial and the pleadings of the parties, we 

disagree. The findings and sentence are correct in law and 

fact, and we find no error materially prejudicial to the 

substantial rights of the appellant. Arts. 59(a) and 66(c), 

UCMJ. 

Background

The appellant was a Marine recruiter in Bloomington, 

Illinois. As part of his duties, he would interact with high 

school teenagers in an effort to recruit worthy candidates into 

the Marine Corps. The appellant was therefore, quite literally, 

one of the faces of the Marine Corps in this community. 

However, instead of ensuring that his conduct remained 

professional or even legal, the appellant began socially 

interacting with these high school students to the point where 

he allowed one male recruit to live with him and provided that 

recruit and several other female teenagers with alcohol on 

several occasions. Eventually, the appellant, a married man, 

engaged in sexual relationships with two female recruits 

admitting that one of them even became his “girlfriend.”1

Sentence Severity

In accordance with Article 66(c), UCMJ, this court “may 

affirm only such findings of guilty and the sentence or such 

part or amount of the sentence, as it finds correct in law and 

fact and determines, on the basis of the entire record, should 

be approved.” This court reviews the appropriateness of a 

 

1 Record at 107. 
3

sentence de novo. United States v. Roach, 66 M.J. 410, 412

(C.A.A.F. 2008). Sentence appropriateness involves the judicial 

function of assuring that justice is done and that the accused 

gets the punishment he deserves, United States v. Healy, 26 M.J. 

394, 395 (C.M.A. 1988), which requires “individualized 

consideration of the particular accused on the basis of the 

nature and seriousness of the offense and character of the 

offender.” United States v. Snelling, 14 M.J. 267, 268 (C.M.A. 

1982) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Conclusion

We have reviewed the entire record and find the appellant’s 

argument is without merit. The findings and sentence as 

approved by the CA are affirmed.

For the Court

 

 

 

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court