UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

CAMPANELLA, HERRING, and PENLAND 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Staff Sergeant KEVIN O. HILL 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20160396 

Headquarters, 21st Theater Sustainment command 

David H. Robertson, Military Judge 

Colonel Paula I. Schasberger, Staff Judge Advocate 

For Appellant: Colonel Mary J. Bradley, JA; Major Christopher D. Coleman, JA; 

Captain Timothy G. Burroughs, JA (on brief). 

For Appellee: Colonel Mark H. Sydenham, JA; Major Melissa Dasgupta Smith, JA; 

Captain Jennifer A. Donahue, JA (on brief). 

28 November 2016 

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

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

CAMPANELLA, Senior Judge: 

 Where the government is responsible for forty-three days of unexplained 

delay elapsing between the convening authority’s action and docketing with this 

court, we grant relief. 

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

pursuant to his pleas, of attempted larceny and larceny, in violation of Articles 80 

and 121 Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 880, 921 (2012) [hereinafter 

UCMJ]. The military judge sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, 

confinement for six months, forfeiture of $1,000.00 pay per month for six months, 

and reduction to the grade of E-1. The convening authority approved the findings 

and only so much of the adjudged sentence as provided for a bad-conduct discharge, 

five months confinement, forfeiture of $1,000.00 pay per month for six months, and 

reduction to the grade of E-1. 
HILL—ARMY 20160396 

2

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

raises one allegation of error which merits discussion and relief. We have also 

considered those matters personally raised by appellant pursuant to United States v. 

Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982) and find them to be without merit. Appellant 

asks this court to provide appropriate relief to remedy the dilatory post-trial 

processing of his case. We agree that relief is appropriate in this case and grant 

thirteen days confinement credit. 

LAW AND DISCUSSION 

The convening authority took action fifty-six days after the sentence was 

adjudged, but it took forty-one additional days after convening authority action for 

this court to receive the record of trial and two days to docket appellant’s case. The 

record in this case consists of just two volumes—the trial transcript is 101 pages. 

Appellant submitted his brief within forty-seven days of his case being docketed. 

The government filed its brief within one month, and explained this record was 

coming from Germany and argued the delay “does not necessitate relief.” 

There is a presumption of unreasonable delay where a record of trial is not 

docketed by the service Court of Criminal Appeals within thirty days of the 

convening authority’s action. United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F. 

2006). Post-trial delay in the administrative handling and forwarding of the record 

of trial and related documents to an appellate court is the “least defensible” type of 

post-trial delay and “worthy of the least patience.” United State v. Dunbar, 31 M.J. 

70, 73 (C.M.A. 1990). 

Although we find no due process violation in the post-trial processing of 

appellant’s case, we must still review the appropriateness of the sentence in light of 

the dilatory post-trial processing. UCMJ art. 66(c); United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 

219, 224 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (“[Pursuant to Article 66(c), UCMJ, service courts are] 

required to determine what findings and sentence ‘should be approved,’ based on all 

the facts and circumstances reflected in the record, including the unexplained and 

unreasonable post-trial delay.”). See United States v. Collazo, 53 M.J. 721, 727 

(Army Ct. Crim. App. 2000). We find relief from this court is appropriate. As such 

this court provides relief in our decretal paragraph. 

CONCLUSION 

Upon consideration of the entire record, the findings of guilt are AFFIRMED. 

Given the dilatory post-trial processing, we affirm only so much of the sentence as 

extends to a bad-conduct discharge, 140 days confinement, forfeiture of $1,000.00 

pay per month for six months, and reduction to the grade of E-1. All rights, 

privileges, and property, of which appellant has been deprived by virtue of that 

portion of his sentence set aside by this decision, are ordered restored. See UCMJ 

arts. 58b(c), and 75(a). 
HILL—ARMY 20160396 

3

Judge HERRING and Judge PENLAND. 

FOR THE COURT: 

 MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

Clerk of Court 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

Clerk of Court 

FOR THE COURT: