UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

CAMPANELLA, HERRING, and PENLAND 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Private E2 JONATHAN J. HINES 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20140890 

Headquarters, U.S. Army Alaska 

Samuel Schubert, Military Judge (arraignment) 

Craig S. Denney, Military Judge (trial) 

Colonel Erik L. Christiansen, Staff Judge Advocate 

For Appellant: Major Andres Vazquez, Jr., JA; Captain Cody Cheek, JA (on brief). 

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

JA; Major Michael E. Korte, JA, Captain Tara O’Brien Goble, JA (on brief). 

28 November 2016 

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

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

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent.

Per Curiam: 

 A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, 

contrary to his pleas, of sexual assault of a child and sexual abuse of a child, in 

violation of Article 120b, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 920b 

(2012) [hereinafter UCMJ]. The convening authority approved the adjudged 

sentence of a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for fifteen months, and reduction 

to the grade of E-1. 

 This case is before us for review pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ. Appellant 

raised four assignments of error, but because the military judge did not authenticate 

the record of trial and both the staff judge advocate’s recommendation and the 

convening authority’s action were based on an unauthenticated record of trial, we do 

not address appellant’s assignments of error. 
HINES—ARMY 20140890 

2 

The record of trial in this case includes two pages for authentication of the 

record, the first is signed by the military judge who conducted the arraignment; it is 

dated 24 March 2015. The second page, for the military judge who conducted the 

remainder of the court-martial, is not signed, but has the dates 23 and 25 March 

2014 written in blue ink. 

This court reviews de novo questions of whether post-trial processing was 

completed correctly. United States v. Sheffield, 60 M.J. 591, 593 (C.A.A.F. 2004). 

Rule for Courts-Martial 1104 states a record is authenticated by the signature of the 

military judge. “The requirement for authentication is, in fact, so longstanding that 

[over half] a century ago the Judge Advocate General of the Army ruled that ‘there 

is no record of trial until the record has been properly authenticated.’” United States 

v. Hill, 47 C.M.R. 397, 398-99 (U.S.C.M.A. 1973) (internal citations omitted). “[I]t 

is error for the staff judge advocate to submit an advice to the convening authority 

based upon a review of an unauthenticated record of trial.” Id. Because the military 

judge who presided over the majority of the court-martial did not authenticate the 

record of trial, and the staff judge advocate’s recommendation and the convening 

authority’s action were based on the unauthenticated record, we find error. 

CONCLUSION 

The convening authority’s action, dated 29 May 2015, is set aside. The record 

of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General for authentication and a new 

review and action by the same or a different convening authority in accordance with 

Article 60(c)-(e), UCMJ. 

 FOR THE COURT: 

 MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

 Clerk of Court 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

Clerk of Court 

FOR THE COURT: