UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

TOZZI, CELTNIEKS, and BURTON 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Sergeant ANDREW D. GRIFFITH 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20150195 

Headquarters, 1st Cavalry Division 

Kenneth W. Shahan, Military Judge 

Colonel Alison C. Martin, Staff Judge Advocate (pretrial) 

Lieutenant Colonel Oren H. McKnelly, Staff Judge Advocate (post-trial) 

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Charles D. Lozano, JA; Captain Heather Tregle, 

JA; Captain Michael A. Gold, JA (on brief). 

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel A.G. Courie, III, JA; Captain Christopher A. 

Clausen, JA (on brief). 

26 July 2016 

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

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

TOZZI, Senior Judge: 

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

contrary to his pleas, of one specification of conspiracy to obstruct justice, and one 

specification of wrongful use of marijuana, in violation of Articles 81 and 112a 

Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 881 and 912a (2012) [hereinafter 

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

confinement for three months, and reduction to the grade of E-1. The convening 

authority approved the findings and sentence as adjudged. 

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

raises one allegation of error which merits discussion and relief. The matters raised 

by appellant pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982) are 
GRIFFITH—ARMY 20150195 

2

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 thirty days confinement credit. 

LAW AND DISCUSSION 

The convening authority took action 198 days after the sentence was 

adjudged, 181 of which are attributable to the government. It took forty-three 

additional days after convening authority action for this court to receive the record 

of trial. The record in this case consists of three volumes and the trial transcript is 

276 pages. The government provided no explanation for this delay. 

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 generally United States v. Toohey, 63 M.J. 

353, 362-63 (C.A.A.F. 2006); United States v. Ney, 68 M.J. 613, 617 (Army Ct. 

Crim. App. 2010); United States v. Collazo, 53 M.J. 721, 727 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 

2000). We find relief from this court is appropriate as the unexplained delay could 

“adversely affect the public’s perception of the fairness and integrity of military 

justice system . . . .” Ney, 68 M.J. at 617. Thus, we provide relief in our decretal 

paragraph. 

CONCLUSION 

Upon consideration of the entire record, the findings of guilty are 

AFFIRMED. Given the dilatory post-trial processing, we affirm only so much of 

the sentence as extends to a bad-conduct discharge, two months and seventeen days 

of confinement, and a 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). 

 

*

 Appellant’s Grostefon matters included an allegation of ineffective assistance of 

counsel. After reviewing the entire record of trial, we have considered the issue of 

ineffective assistance of counsel and find no merit. Additionally, during 

appellant’s unsworn statement at trial, he specifically thanked his defense counsel 

for “doing the best that [they] could [do] for [him].” 
GRIFFITH—ARMY 20150195 

3

Judge CELTNIEKS and Judge BURTON concur. 

FOR THE COURT: 

 MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

Clerk of Court 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

FOR THE COURT: