UNITED STATES COAST GUARD COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Leland D. SHULTZ

Chief Electronics Technician (E-7), U.S. Coast Guard

CGCMSP 25014

Docket No. 1486

20 September 2023

Special court-martial sentenced adjudged on 15 November 2022.

Military Judge: CDR Timothy N. Cronin, USCG

Appellate Defense Counsel: LT Schuyler B. Millham, USCG

BEFORE

MCCLELLAND, BRUBAKER & HERMAN

Appellate Military Judges

Per curiam:

Appellant was tried by special court-martial composed of military judge alone. Pursuant

to his pleas of guilty, entered in accordance with a pretrial agreement, Appellant was convicted 

of one specification of false official statement, in violation of Article 107, Uniform Code of 

Military Justice (UCMJ), and one specification of extramarital sexual conduct, in violation of 

Article 134, UCMJ. The court sentenced Appellant to reduction to E-3 and a bad-conduct 

discharge. The convening authority suspended reduction in grade beyond reduction to E-5. 

Thereafter, judgment was entered.

Before this Court, without admitting that the findings and sentence are correct in law and 

fact, Appellant has submitted this case on its merits as to any and all errors.

The specification of extramarital conduct calls for our attention:
United States v. Leland D. SHULTZ, No. 1486 (C. G. Ct. Crim. App. 2023)

2

In that [Appellant], while on active duty, did, at or near Portsmouth, Virginia, on 

or about January 2020 through January 2021, wrongfully engage in extramarital 

conduct, to wit: had sexual intercourse with [JH], a person the accused knew was 

not the accused’s spouse, and that such conduct was of a nature to bring discredit 

upon the armed forces.

This specification is intended to allege what was formerly called adultery, that is, sexual 

intercourse between two persons, at least one of whom is married to someone else. However, it 

does not allege that either person was married. It is therefore an inadequate specification. United 

States v. King, 34 M.J. 95, 97 (C.M.A. 1992).

During the providence inquiry, the military judge informed Appellant of the elements of 

this offense, including: “Two, that at the time, you were married to someone else, which you 

knew.” R. at 32. Appellant acknowledged, “I was still married while I had a sexual relationship

with somebody that was not my wife.” R. at 34. Given the proper plea inquiry that took place, 

the defective specification did not prejudice Appellant’s substantial rights. United States v. 

Ballan, 71 M.J. 28, 35 (C.A.A.F. 2012).

We note that the convening authority, in suspending a portion of the sentence, failed to 

specify the conditions or period of probation, as required by Rule for Courts-Martial 1107(c) and 

(d)(3), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019) (MCM). Further, the military judge, in 

the Entry of Judgment, stated the sentence to be entered thus: “Reduced to E-3, sentence 

suspended by Convening Authority to a reduction to E-5.” This language does not conform to the 

convening authority’s language or to customary language, and it is confusing. As there is no 

indication of any proceedings to vacate the suspension, we will simply disapprove reduction

below E-5.
United States v. Leland D. SHULTZ, No. 1486 (C. G. Ct. Crim. App. 2023)

3

Decision

Only so much of the sentence as provides for reduction to E-5 and a bad-conduct 

discharge is affirmed. We determine that the findings and sentence, as modified, are correct in 

law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. Accordingly, the findings 

of guilty and the sentence, as modified, are affirmed.

For the Court,

Sarah P. Valdes

Clerk of the Court