UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

KERN, ALDYKIEWICZ, and MARTIN 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Private First Class RANDALL A. WIECK 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20110707 

Headquarters, I Corps (Rear) (Provisional) 

David L. Conn, Military Judge 

Colonel Kurt A. Didier, Staff Judge Advocate 

For Appellant: Major Jacob D. Bashore, JA; Captain Stephen J. Rueter, JA (on 

brief). 

For Appellee: Major Robert A. Rodrigues, JA; Captain Sasha N. Rutizer, JA (on 

brief). 

27 February 2013 

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

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

Per Curiam: 

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

pursuant to his pleas, of two specifications of absence without leave in violation of 

Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 886 (2006) [hereinafter 

UCMJ]. The military judge sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, 

confinement for five months, forfeiture of $978.00 pay per month for five months, 

and reduction to the grade of E-1. The convening authority approved a sentence to a 

bad-conduct discharge, confinement for four months, forfeiture of $978.00 pay per 

month for five months, and reduction to the grade of E-1. Appellant was credited 

with eighty-six days of confinement against his sentence to confinement. 

Appellant’s sole assignment of error for our review under Article 66, UCMJ, 

is that he was denied the opportunity to request that the convening authority defer 

his reduction in rank and his adjudged and automatic forfeitures. 

 On a standard post-trial and appellate rights advisement form, appellant 

indicated that he wanted to request deferral of his reduction in rank, adjudged 
WIECK—ARMY 20110707 

2 

forfeitures, and automatic forfeitures. However, contrary to appellant’s expressed 

desires, the record fails to reveal that any such deferment requests were ever 

presented to the convening authority. As a result, appellant claims that he was 

prejudiced and requests that this court order a new review and action. The 

government concedes the propriety of a new review and action. In light of the 

government’s concession, we will grant appellant’s requested relief. See United 

States v. Fordyce, 69 M.J. 501 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2010) (en banc). 

 While not raised, we also note that Appellate Exhibit V, which should consist 

of “a copy of the Secretary of the Army’s designation action [designating I Corps 

(Rear) (Provisional) as a GCMCA], as well as the assumption of command by 

General Miles, the convening authority,” is missing from the record. Considering 

the relief granted herein, the government will be afforded the opportunity to address 

the omitted exhibit. 

 The convening authority’s initial action, dated 16 February 2012, is set aside. 

The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General for a new staff judge 

advocate recommendation and a new action by the same or different convening 

authority in accordance with Article 60(c)–(e), UCMJ. In addition, appellant will 

receive assistance from a new defense counsel. 

 FOR THE COURT: 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

 Clerk of Court 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

Clerk of Court 

FOR THE COURT: