UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

JOHNSON, KRAUSS, and BURTON 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Private E1 MICHAEL E. QUEENAN 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20110423 

Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and Fort Campbell 

Timothy Grammel, Military Judge 

Lieutenant Colonel Joseph B. Morse, Staff Judge Advocate 

For Appellant: Colonel Patricia A. Ham, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Imogene M. 

Jamison, JA; Major Richard E. Gorini, JA; Captain Richard M. Gallagher, JA (on 

brief). 

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Amber J. Roach, JA; Captain Chad M. Fisher, JA; 

Major James A. Ewing, JA (on brief). 

22 August 2012 

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

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

Per Curiam: 

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

pursuant to his pleas, of one specification of absent without leave, three 

specifications of engaging in sexual acts with a child who had attained the age of 

twelve years but had not attained the age of sixteen, two specifications of sodomy 

with a child who has attained the age of twelve but under the age of sixteen, and two 

specifications of adultery in violation of Articles 86, 120b, 125 and 134, Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 886, 920b, 925, 934 (2006) [hereinafter 

UCMJ]. See Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, (2008 ed.), pt. IV, ¶ 62.b. 

Appellant was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for forty-two 

months, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The convening authority approved 

a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for thirty-six months, and forfeiture of all pay 

and allowances. Appellant was credited with one hundred sixty-seven days of 

confinement against the sentence of confinement. 
QUEENAN—ARMY 20110423 

2 

 In light of United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2012), we are 

compelled to disapprove the findings of guilt as to Specifications 2 and 3 of Charge 

IV in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.* The specifications do not contain allegations 

of terminal elements under Article 134, UCMJ, and there is nothing in the record to 

satisfactorily establish notice of the need to defend against a terminal element as 

required under Humphries. Therefore, we now reverse appellant’s convictions for 

adultery and dismiss the defective specifications which failed to state an offense in 

light of United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011). 

On consideration of the entire record, the findings of guilty of Specifications 

2 and 3 of Charge IV are set aside and dismissed. The remaining findings of guilty 

are affirmed. Reassessing the sentence on the basis of the error noted, the entire 

record, and in accordance with the principles of United States v. Sales, 22 M.J. 305 

(C.M.A. 1986), and United States v. Moffeit, 63 M.J. 40 (C.A.A.F. 2006), to include 

the factors identified by Judge Baker in his concurring opinion in Moffeit, the court 

affirms the sentence as approved by the convening authority. 

 FOR THE COURT: 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

 Clerk of Court 

 

*

 The Military Judge changed appellant’s plea to Specification 1 of Charge IV to not 

guilty prior to findings. Specification 4 of Charge IV was dismissed. 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

Clerk of Court 

FOR THE COURT: