_______________________

* Judge GALLAGHER took final action on this case prior to her permanent change 

of duty station.

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before

COOK, GALLAGHER,* and HAIGHT

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v.

Private E1 BRETT M. GASKILL

United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20110028

Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood

Jacqueline Emanuel, Military Judge

Colonel Phillip N. Foster, Staff Judge Advocate 

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

Jamison, JA; Major Jacob D. Bashore, JA (on brief); Colonel Kevin F. Boyle, JA; 

Major Jacob D. Bashore, JA (on brief in response to specified issue). 

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Amber J. Roach, JA; Major Catherine L. Brantley, 

JA; Captain Bradley M. Endicott, JA; Captain Edward J. Whitford, JA (on brief); 

Colonel John P. Carrell, JA; Lieutenant Colonel James L. Varley, JA; Major 

Catherine L. Brantley, JA; Captain Samuel Gabremariam, JA (on brief in response to

specified issue). 

12 August 2013

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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

Per Curiam:

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

pursuant to his pleas, of one specification of failing to go to his appointed place of 

duty, two specifications of absence without leave, one specification of reckless 

driving, and five specifications of larceny in violation of Articles 86, 111, and 121, 

Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 886, 911, 921 (2006) [hereinafter 

UCMJ]. The military judge also convicted appellant of one specification of failing 

to go to his appointed place of duty as a closely related offense of absence without 

leave in violation of Article 86, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 886. The military judge 

sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for twelve months, and 

to forfeit $978.00 pay per month for twelve months. The convening authority 

approved only so much of the sentence as provided for a bad-conduct discharge, 
GASKILL – ARMY 20110028

2

confinement for six months, and forfeiture of $978.00 pay per month for six months. 

The convening authority credited appellant with 177 days of confinement credit. 

This case is before this court for review pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ. 

Appellate counsel assigned three errors to this court and appellant personally raised 

matters pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982). After 

our review of the record, we requested counsel address two additional issues. While 

both of these two additional issues merit discussion, only one merits relief. The 

additional assignments of error and those matters personally raised by appellant 

pursuant to Grostefon are without merit. 

BACKGROUND

Failure to Report

In Specification 2 of Charge II, appellant was charged with absence without 

leave in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. At trial, pursuant to a pretrial agreement, 

appellant pleaded guilty to the charged offense. The military judge explained the 

elements of absence without leave and asked appellant to explain why he was guilty 

of such an offense. Appellant explained that from 5 October 2010 until 7 October 

2010, he did not leave the installation but remained in his barracks room located on 

Fort Hood. He missed several formations, physical training sessions, and work -call. 

He eventually returned to duty when a noncommissioned officer came to his room on 

7 October 2010 and ordered him to return to duty. Based on appellant’s statements 

during the providence inquiry, the military judge found him not guilty of absence 

without leave but guilty of failing to report to his appointed place of duty. During 

the colloquy, the military judge neither discussed this other offense with appellant 

nor listed the elements of that offense. 

Larceny

In Specifications 2, 3, and 4 of Charge V, appellant was charged with larceny 

of funds from three different soldiers within his unit. The charges stemmed from 

appellant stealing bank debit cards and subsequently using the cards to purchase 

goods. Each specification listed the victim of the larceny as the individual service

member rather than the merchants providing the goods or the issuers of the bank

debit cards. 

Again pursuant to a pretrial agreement, appellant entered pleas of guilty to 

each of the three specifications. Consistent with the specifications, t he military 

judge listed the elements of larceny, stating that appellant took “money in the form 

of unauthorized bank card usage.” She then questioned appellant regarding the 

factual basis for his plea. Appellant admitted stealing Sergeant (SGT) PB’s, Private 

First Class (PFC) DP’s, and PFC MK’s bank cards and using them, without 
GASKILL – ARMY 20110028

3

authorization, like a credit card to debit money from their respective bank accounts 

to purchase pizza, Xbox games, and Xbox videos. 

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Failure to Report

Appellant argues the military judge abused her discretion when she found 

appellant not guilty of absence without leave but guilty of failing to go to his 

appointed place of duty because failure to report is not a lesser included offense of 

absence without leave. In its response to appellant’s argument, the government 

concedes the military judge abused her discretion in convicting appellant of failing 

to report as an undiscussed variation of absence without leave. In this case, we 

agree with appellant and accept the government’s concession on this issue. As such, 

we will take appropriate action in our decretal paragraph.

 

Larceny

Article 45, UCMJ, requires the plea to be rejected if the accused sets up a

“matter inconsistent with the plea, or if it appears that he has entered the plea of 

guilty improvidently or through lack of understanding of its meaning and effect 

. . . .” A military judge must both explain the elements of an offense and elicit a 

factual basis to support each element of the offense. United States v. Jordan, 57 

M.J. 236, 238 (C.A.A.F. 2002); United States v. Faircloth, 45 M.J. 172, 174 

(C.A.A.F. 1996). “We review a military judge’s decision to accept a guilty plea for 

an abuse of discretion and questions of law arising from the guilty plea de novo. In 

doing so, we apply the substantial basis test, looking at whether there is something 

in the record of trial, with regard to the factual basis or the law, that would raise a 

substantial question regarding the appellant’s guilty plea.” United States v. 

Inabinette, 66 M.J. 320, 322 (C.A.A.F. 2008).

“Wrongfully engaging in a credit, debit, or electronic transaction to obtain 

goods or money is an obtaining-type larceny by false pretense. Such use to obtain 

goods is usually a larceny of those goods from the merchant offering them.” Manual 

for Courts-Martial, United States (2008 ed.) [hereinafter MCM], pt. IV, ¶ 

46.c.(1)(h)(vi). However, “. . . alternative charging theories remain available if 

warranted by the facts.” United States v. Lubasky, 68 M.J. 260, 264 (C.A.A.F. 2010) 

(citation omitted). See also Lubasky, 68 M.J. at 263 (noting use of a debit card can 

constitute larceny of money from the owner of the bank account). “As used in 

Article 121, UCMJ, the single term ‘larceny’ encompasses and consolidates what in 

the past were separate crimes, i.e., larceny, larceny by trick, embezzlement, and 

obtaining property by false pretenses.” Lubasky, 68 M.J. at 263 (citing United 

States v. Antonelli, 35 M.J. 122, 124 (C.M.A. 1992)). “Because of this, ‘the 

particular means of acquisition of the property became re latively unimportant . . . .’” 

Lubasky, 68 M.J. at 263 (quoting United States v. Aldridge, 25 C.M.A. 330, 331-32, 
GASKILL – ARMY 20110028

4

8 C.M.R. 130, 131-32 (1953)). See also United States v. Meng, 43 M.J. 801 (A.F. 

Ct. Crim. App. 1995), pet. denied, 44 M.J. 47 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (finding both 

wrongful taking and wrongful obtaining were valid theories of larceny when 

appellant caused the electronic transfer of funds).

In this guilty plea case, the military judge advised appellant of the elements 

and definitions of larceny by wrongfully taking “money in the form of unauthorized 

bank card usage” from the three individual soldiers. As to each of the larcenies, the 

stipulation of fact and appellant’s providence inquiry identified the monetary 

amount debited at each transaction from the named victim’s bank account and the 

unauthorized nature of the card use. More importantly, appellant expressly agreed 

that the funds belonged to the individual soldier-victims, and that appellant 

wrongfully obtained money in the form of unauthorized bank card usage with the 

specific intent to permanently defraud the individual soldier of the use and benefit of 

his money. The providence inquiry, in combination with the stipulation of fact,

sufficiently supported the pleas of guilty to each larceny as set forth in the

specifications. 

We are satisfied from the record as a whole that appellant understood his plea 

to the charged larceny offenses and understood how the law related to the facts of 

his case. As such, we do not find a substantial basis in law and fact to question 

appellant’s guilty plea to Specifications 2, 3, and 4, of Charge V. 

CONCLUSION

The finding of guilty of Specification 2 of Charge II is 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. 

FOR THE COURT:

ANTHONY O. POTTINGER

Chief Deputy Clerk of Court 

ANTHONY O. POTTINGER

Chief Deputy Clerk of Court

FOR THE COURT: