UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

COOK, GALLAGHER, and HAIGHT 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Specialist EVAN R. BROWN 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20100022 

Headquarters, Maneuver Support Center of Excellence 

Charles D. Hayes Jr., Military Judge 

Colonel Steven E. Walburn, Staff Judge Advocate (pretrial) 

Lieutenant Colonel Michael A. Cressler, Acting Staff Judge Advocate 

(recommendation) 

 Colonel James R. Agar, II, Staff Judge Advocate (addendum) 

For Appellant: Mr. Timothy Mudd, Esquire (argued); Captain Jennifer A. Parker, 

JA; Mr. Timothy Mudd, Esquire (on brief); Captain E. Patrick Gilman, JA; Mr. 

Timothy Mudd, Esquire (on reply brief); Major Richard E. Gorini, JA. 

For Appellee: Captain Sasha N. Rutizer, JA (argued); Major Amber J. Williams, JA; 

Major LaJohnne A. White, JA; Captain Julie A. Glascott, JA (on brief); Major 

Robert A. Rodrigues, JA. 

28 September 2012 

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

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

Per Curiam: 

 A panel of enlisted and officer members, sitting as a general court-martial, 

convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of four specifications of indecent acts in 

violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 920 (2006 & 

Supp. II 2008) [hereinafter UCMJ]. The convening authority approved the adjudged 

sentence to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for 181 days, forfeiture of all pay 

and allowances, and reduction to the grade of E-1. 
BROWN—ARMY 20100022 

2

The convening authority approved appellant’s request for deferment of 

automatic and adjudged forfeitures until action. At action, the convening authority 

waived appellant’s automatic forfeitures for a six-month period, with direction that 

they be paid to appellant’s spouse. However, the convening authority failed to 

disapprove the adjudged forfeitures, thus leaving no pay and allowances to waive for 

the benefit of appellant’s spouse. Therefore, in order to effectuate the clear intent of 

the convening authority and in the spirit of judicial economy, we set aside that 

portion of the sentence that included forfeiture of all pay and allowances. 

On consideration of the entire record, the arguments of the parties, and the 

matters personally raised by appellant pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 

M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), we find appellant’s arguments to be without merit.

 The 

findings of guilty are affirmed. The portion of the sentence that included forfeiture 

of all pay and allowances is hereby set aside. The remainder of the sentence is 

affirmed. All rights, privileges, and property, of which appellant was deprived by 

virtue of that portion of his sentence being set aside by this decision, are hereby 

ordered restored. See UCMJ arts. 58(b), 75(a). 

 

FOR THE COURT: 

 MALCOLM H. SQUIRES JR. 

 Clerk of Court 

                                                           

 Additionally, we find the military judge did not impermissibly exclude 

constitutionally required evidence. See United States v. Gaddis, 70 M.J. 248 

(C.A.A.F. 2011). 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.                          

Clerk of Court

FOR THE COURT: