UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

J.A. FISCHER, D.C. KING, D.J. SMITH

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JEREMY J. BUSHNELL

BOATSWAIN'S MATE SECOND CLASS (E-5), U.S. NAVY

NMCCA 201400364

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 10 July 2014.

Military Judge: CDR J.A. Maksym, JAGC, USN.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, USS LASSEN (DDG 

82).

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: LTJG J.L. Root, 

JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: LCDR Dillon Ambrose, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: CAPT Dale Harris, JAGC, USN; Capt C. Carver, 

USMC.

9 April 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:

A military judge, sitting as a special court-martial, 

convicted the appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of violating a 

lawful general order prohibiting sexual harassment, two 

specifications of making a false official statement, and 

intentionally exposing his genitalia in an indecent manner, in 
2

violation of Articles 92, 107, and 120c, Uniform Code of 

Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 892, 907, and 920c. The adjudged 

sentence included reduction to pay grade E-1, confinement for 

eleven months and twenty-eight days, and a bad-conduct 

discharge. The convening authority (CA) approved the sentence 

as adjudged and, pursuant to the terms of the pretrial 

agreement, suspended all confinement in excess of nine months. 

On appeal, the appellant alleges that his sentence is 

inappropriately severe.1

 After carefully examining the record of 

trial, as well as the submissions of the parties, we are 

convinced that the findings and sentence are correct in law and 

fact, and that no error materially prejudicial to the 

substantial rights of the appellant was committed. Arts. 59(a) 

and 66(c), UCMJ. 

Background

On the evening of 9 July 2013, the appellant was standing 

bridge watch aboard the USS LASSEN (DDG 82) and Boatswain’s Mate 

Seaman (BMSN) AS was standing watch as the aft lookout. The 

appellant was directed to check on the aft lookout because the 

ship was heading into a storm. When he checked on her, BMSN AS 

asked the appellant to get her some food and the appellant 

responded that he would do so if she would do something for him. 

The appellant then walked over to BMSN AS, unzipped his 

coveralls and exposed his penis to her in hopes of receiving 

oral sex. BMSN AS declined the appellant’s sexual advance. 

During an investigation of the appellant’s misconduct, the 

appellant twice lied to Naval Criminal Investigative Service

agents about the incident and falsely told members of the crew 

that BMSN AS was lying about the entire incident.

 

Sentence Severity

In his sole assignment of error, the appellant alleges that 

his sentence was inappropriately severe. We disagree.

The case law governing this area is beyond cavil. It is 

well and firmly settled that this Court reviews sentence 

appropriateness claims de novo. United States v. Baier, 60 M.J. 

382, 384-85 (C.A.A.F. 2005). And it “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 

 

1 This assignment of error was raised pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 

12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982).
3

determines, on the basis of the entire record, should be 

approved.” Art. 66(c), UCMJ. The appropriateness of the 

sentence must be judged by an “‘individualized consideration’” 

of an appellant, “‘on the basis of the nature and seriousness of 

the offense and the character of the offender.’” United States 

v. Snelling, 14 M.J. 267, 268 (C.M.A. 1982) (quoting United 

States v. Mamaluy, 27 C.M.R. 176, 180-81 (C.M.A. 1959)). The 

punishment should fit both the offender and the crime. United 

States v. Mack, 9 M.J. 300, 317 (C.M.A. 1980). The sentence 

should not be more severe than that “warranted by the offense, 

the circumstances surrounding the offense, [the accused’s] 

acceptance or lack of acceptance of responsibility for his 

offense, and his prior record.” United States v. Aurich, 31 

M.J. 95, 97 (C.M.A. 1990).

If a sentence is unjustifiably severe, this court may not 

approve it. See United States v. Lanford, 20 C.M.R. 87, 92-95 

(C.M.A. 1955). A military Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) 

should not affirm even an unsuspended punitive discharge if it 

is not appropriate. United States v. Healy, 26 M.J. 394, 396 

n.5 (C.M.A. 1988). Indeed, CCAs have broad discretion to grant 

relief under Article 66(c). 

As indicated above, the record is clear that the appellant 

sexually harassed a junior Sailor aboard ship while underway, 

during a storm, and while the junior Sailor victim was directly 

under his charge. During the course of his sexual advance, the 

appellant exposed his penis to BMSN AS for 20 seconds. When 

later questioned by NCIS regarding these acts, the appellant 

twice lied and blamed the victim for his criminal actions. 

Additionally, the record reveals that the military trial 

judge accurately and thoughtfully considered an appropriate 

sentence before announcing appellant’s punishment. Indeed, he 

made special findings before announcing his sentence that 

underscore the gravity of the appellant’s conduct.2

 In sum, the 

military judge demonstrated that he understood the severity of 

the offenses to which appellant pled guilty and appropriately 

considered all relevant circumstances inherent in this case 

before issuing his sentence.

In light of the appellant’s actions, the totality of the 

record, and the governing case law, we are completely convinced 

that his sentence is appropriate for his offenses.

 

2 Record at 108-09.
4

Conclusion

Both the findings and the sentence as approved by the CA 

are affirmed.

For the Court

 

 

 

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court