This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

GASTON, BAKER, and MYERS

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Javonte R. JACKSON

Culinary Specialist Second Class (E-5), U.S. Navy

Appellant

No. 202100087

_________________________

Decided: 25 April 2022

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: 

Kimberly J. Kelly

Sentence adjudged 11 December 2020 by a general court-martial convened at Naval Base Kitsap, Bremerton, Washington, consisting of a 

military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to E-1, confinement for six months, and a bad-conduct discharge.

For Appellant:

Captain Jasper W. Casey, USMC

For Appellee: 

Captain Tyler W. Blair, USMC

Major Clayton L. Wiggins, USMC
United States v. Jackson, NMCCA No. 202100087

Opinion of the Court

2

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent, but 

may be cited as persuasive authority under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2.

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted, pursuant to his pleas, of violation of a lawful general order and assault consummated by a battery in violation of Articles 92 and 

128, Uniform Code of Military Justice [UCMJ],1 for sexually harassing four 

junior Sailors and assaulting a fifth. In his sole assignment of error, he asserts

that his punitive discharge is inappropriately severe, arguing that he put on a 

strong case in extenuation and mitigation, was remorseful, and acknowledged 

that he showed poor judgment. We affirm the findings and sentence. 

I. BACKGROUND

Between June 2018 and April 2019, while assigned to USS Carl Vinson

(CVN 70), Appellant sexually harassed four of his subordinate Sailors on multiple occasions. He made sexual jokes and comments, questioned them about 

their sex lives, used sexually explicit language in their workspaces, and shared 

details describing his own sex life. He later admitted that his actions were offensive and unwelcome, made the Sailors he supervised feel uncomfortable, 

and created a hostile work environment, which impacted their ability to perform their duties and was detrimental to good order and discipline.

In May 2019, Appellant and his wife held a church dance routine practice 

at their home. One of Appellant’s female subordinates attended the practice. 

When the practice concluded, Appellant walked the Sailor to her car. As she 

turned to get into her car, he grabbed her hand and moved it toward his lower 

stomach area. In doing so, he restrained her and prevented her from leaving, 

which made her uncomfortable and upset. He acknowledged that the Sailor did 

not consent to this act and that his actions caused her bodily harm. 

Appellant subsequently entered into a plea agreement, in which he agreed 

to plead guilty to the above-described offenses in exchange for the convening 

authority agreeing to a confinement range of four to nine months and to withdraw and dismiss other specifications charging Appellant with sexual offenses.

 

1 10 U.S.C. §§ 892, 928.
United States v. Jackson, NMCCA No. 202100087

Opinion of the Court

3

The agreement placed no limitation on the military judge’s ability to adjudge

a punitive discharge or reduction in rank.

II. DISCUSSION

We review sentence appropriateness de novo.2 This Court may only affirm 

“the sentence, or such part or amount of the sentence, as the Court finds correct 

in law and fact and determines, on the basis of the entire record, should be 

approved.”3 In exercising this function, we seek to assure that “justice is done 

and that the accused gets the punishment he deserves.”4 The review requires 

an “individualized consideration of the particular accused on the basis of the 

nature and seriousness of the offense and the character of the offender.”5 In 

making this assessment, we analyze the record as a whole. We have significant 

discretion in determining sentence appropriateness, but we may not engage in 

acts of clemency.6

Appellant’s punishment was the predictable result of the plea agreement 

he negotiated and voluntarily entered into with the convening authority. As 

Appellant acknowledged at trial, the agreement provided that Appellant could 

be sentenced to the full range of punitive discharge options—from no discharge

to a dishonorable discharge—and limited confinement to a period of between 

four and nine months. Thus, under the terms of the agreement the military 

judge could have sentenced Appellant to nine months’ confinement and a dishonorable discharge. Instead, she adjudged a sentence that included only a 

bad-conduct discharge and six months’ confinement. This sentence was well 

within the parameters of the plea agreement, and as we have previously 

stated, “we generally refrain from second guessing . . . a sentence that flows 

from a lawful pretrial agreement . . . .”7

 

2 United States v. Lane, 64 M.J. 1, 2 (C.A.A.F. 2006).

3 Article 66(d)(1), UCMJ.

4 United States v. Healy, 26 M.J. 394, 395 (C.M.A. 1988).

5 United States v. Snelling, 14 M.J. 267, 268 (C.M.A. 1982) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted).

6 United States v. Nerad, 69 M.J. 138, 146 (C.A.A.F. 2010).

7 United States v. Widak, No. 201500309, 2016 CCA LEXIS 172 at *7 (N-M. Ct. 

Crim. App. Mar. 22, 2016) (unpublished); see also United States v. Casuso, No. 

202000114, 2021 CCA LEXIS 328 at *8 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. June 30, 2021) (unpublished) (questioning an appellant’s “claim of inappropriate severity when the sentence he received was within the range of punishment he was expressly willing to accept in exchange for his pleas of guilty”).
United States v. Jackson, NMCCA No. 202100087

Opinion of the Court

4

Irrespective of the plea agreement, in light of the serious and repeated nature of Appellant’s misconduct, which adversely impacted the service of five

Sailors and the Navy’s accomplishment of its mission, we find that the sentence

including six months’ confinement and a bad-conduct discharge is just, and 

that Appellant received the punishment he deserves. Despite evidence of his 

difficult childhood and prior record of good service, the evidence reveals an 11-

month course of unwanted sexual advances by Appellant that included not only 

propositioning his subordinates for sex, but also touching their private areas 

and trying to make them touch his without their consent. As a result, the victims suffered significant mental pain and anxiety. After reviewing the record 

as a whole, we find that the sentence is correct in law, appropriately reflects 

the matters in aggravation, extenuation, and mitigation presented, and should 

be approved.

III. CONCLUSION

After careful consideration of the record and briefs of appellate counsel, we 

have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and 

that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred.8

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court

 

8 Articles 59 & 66, UCMJ.