UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

CAMPANELLA, HERRING, and PENLAND 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Sergeant ANDREW M. JONES 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20140528 

Headquarters, United States Army Maneuver Center of Excellence (trial) 

Headquarters, United States Army Military District of Washington (DuBay) 

Charles A. Kuhfahl Jr., Military Judge (trial) 

S. Charles Neill, Military Judge (DuBay) 

Colonel Charles C. Poché, Staff Judge Advocate (trial) 

Colonel John P. Carrell, Staff Judge Advocate (DuBay) 

For Appellant: Captain Amanda Renée McNeil Williams, JA; Philip D. Cave, 

Esquire; J. Thomas Province, Esquire (on brief); Captain Joshua B. Fix, JA; Philip 

D. Cave, Esquire; J. Thomas Province, Esquire (on reply brief). 

For Appellee: Colonel Mark H. Sydenham, JA; Lieutenant Colonel A.G. Courie, III, 

JA; Major Cormac M. Smith, JA; Captain Linda Chavez, JA (on brief). 

2 May 2017 

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ON FURTHER REVIEW 

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

HERRING, Judge: 

A general court-martial composed of a military judge sitting alone convicted 

appellant, contrary to his pleas, of four specifications of indecent acts with a child 

and communicating a threat in violation of Article 134 of the Uniform Code of 

Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 934 (2006) [hereinafter UCMJ]. The military judge 

sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for three years, and 

reduction to the grade of E-1. The convening authority dismissed Specification 8 of 

Charge III because it was barred by the statute of limitation and approved only so 

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

thirty-six months, and reduction to the grade of E-2. 
JONES—ARMY 20140528 

2

On 23 November 2016 this court returned appellant’s record of trial to The 

Judge Advocate General for a hearing pursuant to United States v. DuBay, 17 

U.S.C.M.A. 147, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1967). United States v. Jones, ARMY 20140528 

(Army Ct. Crim. App. 23 Nov. 2016) (order). On 2 February 2017, the DuBay

hearing concluded. The military judge made findings of fact and conclusions of law 

with respect to whether appellant’s defense counsel were ineffective. (App. Ex. 

LXXXIII). We hereby adopt his findings of fact and conclusions of law. We agree 

that defense counsel were deficient in failing to: 1) “present evidence about [TB’s] 

motives to engineer this prosecution and her repeated statements that she would 

makes sure [appellant] was punished;” 2) “conduct a full investigation regarding 

[TB] and her motives to fabricate;” and 3) “prepare [appellant] to testify.” 

Appellant was found not guilty of nineteen specifications. The five specifications of 

which he was found guilty all involved TB’s children. We agree there is a 

reasonable probability of a more favorable result had the deficiencies not occurred. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated previously, the findings of guilty and the sentence are 

set aside. A rehearing may be ordered by the same or a different convening 

authority. All right, privileges, and property, of which appellant has been deprived 

by virtue of the findings and sentence set aside by this decision, are ordered 

restored. See UCMJ arts. 58a(b), 58b(c), 75(a). 

 Senior Judge CAMPANELLA and Judge PENLAND concur. 

 FOR THE COURT: 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

 Clerk of Court 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

Clerk of Court 

FOR THE COURT: