UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before

COOK, TELLITOCCI, and HAIGHT

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v.

Sergeant HAROLD B. HILL

United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20130240

Headquarters, U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence

Stephen E. Castlen, Military Judge (arraignment and pretrial motions hearing)

James W. Herring, Jr., Military Judge (pretrial motions hearing and trial)

Colonel James F. Garrett, Staff Judge Advocate

For Appellant: Colonel Kevin Boyle, JA; Major Vincent T. Shuler, JA; Captain 

Patrick J. Scudieri, JA (on brief).

For Appellee: Colonel John P. Carrell, JA; Lieutenant Colonel James L. Varley, JA; 

Major Robert A. Rodrigues, JA; Captain Benjamin W. Hogan, JA (on brief).

30 April 2015

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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

HAIGHT, Judge:

A panel composed of officer and enlisted members sitting as a general courtmartial convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of willful disobedience of a 

superior commissioned officer, maltreatment of a subordinate, making a false 

official statement, and communicating indecent language, in violation of Articles 90, 

93, 107, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice [hereinafter UCMJ], 10 U.S.C. 

§§ 890, 893, 907, 934.



 The panel sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, 

confinement for two years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the 

grade of E-1. The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence.

 



The panel acquitted appellant of attempted rape, aggravated sexual contact, 

wrongful sexual contact, and assault consummated by battery.
HILL—ARMY 20130240

2

Appellant’s case is now pending review before this court pursuant to Article 

66, UMCJ. Appellant raises one assignment of error, which merits discussion and 

relief. Appellant personally raises multiple issues pursuant to United States v. 

Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), none of which merits discussion and relief.

Discussion

The Specification of Charge V alleges appellant “maltreat[ed] SGT AB, a 

person subject to his orders, by making inappropriate comments about he r buttocks, 

asking her if she wanted to have sexual intercourse with him, and asking her if she 

wanted to give him oral sex.” Similarly, the Specification of Charge VI alleges 

appellant, on the same date and at the same location as charged in Charge V, 

“orally communicate[d] to SGT AB, certain indecent language, to wit: inappropriate 

comments regarding her buttocks, asking if she wanted to have sexual intercourse 

with him, and asking if she wanted to give him oral sex . . . .” Appellant was 

convicted of both the maltreatment and indecent language, but the military judge 

merged the two offenses for purposes of sentencing, instructing the panel to consider 

these two specifications as one offense in determining an appropriate sentence.

Appellant now claims the finding of guilty to the charge of indecent language 

should be set aside. We agree and will grant the requested relief.

At trial, the government not only conceded that the two specifications related 

to the same misconduct, but declared that the two offenses were charged in the 

alternative. Accordingly, it is incumbent to set aside one of the specifications. See 

United States v. Elespuru, 73 M.J. 326 (C.A.A.F. 2014). 

Conclusion

The findings of guilty of Charge VI and its specification are se t aside and that 

charge and specification are DISMISSED. The remaining findings of guilty are 

AFFIRMED. “Because the military judge merged [Charge V and VI] for sentencing 

purposes, we find that, under the facts of this case, [a]ppellant was not prejudiced 

with regard to his sentence.” Id. at 330. The approved sentence is AFFIRMED.

Senior Judge COOK and Judge TELLITOCCI concur.

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court

FOR THE COURT: