UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

BURTON, RODRIGUEZ, and FLEMING 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Sergeant TERRACE L. SOLOMON 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20160456 

Headquarters, United States Army Alaska 

Sean F. Mangan, Military Judge 

Colonel Erik L. Christiansen, Staff Judge Advocate 

For Appellant: Captain Catherine E. Godfrey, JA; Zachary Spilman, Esquire (on 

brief and reply brief) 

For Appellee: Colonel Steven P. Haight, J A; Lieutenant Colonel Wayne H. 

Williams, JA; Major Hannah E. Kaufman, JA; Captain Christopher T. Leighton, JA 

(on brief). 

10 March 2020 

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ON FURTHER REVIEW 

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent. 

FLEMING, Judge: 

In our second review of appellant's case under Article 66, UCMJ, we dismiss 

an additional specification and reassess his sentence. 1 

1 An enlisted panel sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant contrary to 

his pleas of two specifications of violating an order from a superior commissioned 

officer, two specifications of insubordinate conduct towards a superior 

noncommissioned officer, one specification of assault consummated by a battery of a 

child under the age of sixteen, three specifications of assault consummated by a 

battery, one specification of simple assault, and one specification of using language 

( continued ... ) 
SOLOMON-ARMY 20160456 

Appellant raised eight assignments of error in our first review under Article 

66, UCMJ. 2 See United States v. Solomon, ARMY 20160456, 2019 CCA LEXIS 149 

(Army Ct. Crim. App. 3 Apr. 10) (mem. op.). We issued a lengthy memorandum 

opinion affirming, dismissing, and setting aside various specifications and setting 

aside the sentence. Id. at * 3 6-3 7 We remanded the case and provided the same or 

a different convening authority with two options: "1) order a rehearing on 

Specification 2 of Charge III and the sentence; or 2) dismiss Specification 2 of 

Charge III and reassess the sentence, affirming no more than a bad-conduct 

discharge, confinement for twenty-four months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 

and reduction to the grade of E-1. " 3 Id. at *3 7. As to the second option, we stated: 

In reassessing the sentence, we are satisfied that the 

sentence adjudged on the offenses we affirm would have 

been at least a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 

twenty-four months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 

and reduction to the grade of E-1. See United States v. 

Sales, 22 M.J. 305, 308 (C.M.A. 1986); United States v. 

( ... continued) 

that was prejudicial to good order and discipline and was of a nature to bring 

discredit on the armed forces, in violation of Articles 90, 91, 128, and 134, Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 890,891,928,934 [UCMJ]. The panel 

sentenced appellant to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for twelve years, total 

forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade of E-1. The 

convening authority disapproved the findings of guilty to one of the specifications of 

assault consummated by a battery and the specification of using language that was 

prejudicial to good order and discipline and was of a nature to bring discredit on the 

armed forces. The convening authority approved only so much of the sentence 

extending to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for three years, total forfeiture 

of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade of E-1. The convening 

authority also credited appellant with 243 days of pretrial confinement credit against 

the sentence to confinement. 

2 We determined two errors merited discussion; one of which merited relief. We 

determined one of the two matters filed by appellant pursuant to United States v. 

Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), merited relief. Solomon, 2019 CCA LEXIS 

149, at *3, 37. 

3 As to any sentence to confinement, appellant was credited with the 243 days of 

pretrial confinement credit originally granted at trial and with an additional 86 days 

of confinement credit for the government's noncompliance with R.C.M. 305. Id. at 

*37. 

2 
SOLOMON-ARMY 20160456 

Winckelmann, 73 M.J. 11, 15-16 (C.A.A.F. 2013). This 

reassessment, being both appropriate and purging the 

record as it stands of error, does not otherwise limit the 

sentence that may be adjudged at a rehearing. See UCMJ, 

art. 63. 

Id. at *37 n. 23. 

In September 2019, the convening authority selected our second option by 

dismissing Specification 2 of Charge III, reassessing the sentence, and approving a 

bad-conduct discharge, confinement for twenty-four months, forfeiture of all pay and 

allowances, and reduction to the grade of E-1. 

Appellant's case is again before us for review pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ. 

Appellant renews seven assignments of error previously raised during our initial 

review and asserts three new assignments of error. One of appellant's new 

assignments of error merits discussion but no relief. 4 

LAW AND DISCUSSION 

Appellant now asserts the convening authority was not authorized to reassess 

his sentence after our court set the sentence aside. We pause to note that appellant 

did not file a request for reconsideration regarding this alleged legal error with our 

court after our issuance of our memorandum opinion. Appellant did, however, in his 

Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1105 submission to the convening authority assert 

"[t]he Army court is wrong. " 5 Despite his assertion of error, appellant urged the 

convening authority to approve a sentence of no punishment - a defense request the 

convening authority denied. 

Having now notified our court of this alleged error, we will assume, without· 

deciding, that our court erred in granting the convening authority the ability to 

4 We have given full and fair consideration to all of appellant's other assignments of 

error and the matter raised pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 

(C.M.A. 1982), and find they merit neither discussion nor relief. 

5 Pursuant to R.C.M. 1105, after a sentence is adjudged, an accused may submit 

matters to the convening authority "[t]hat may reasonably tend to affect the 

convening authority's decision whether to disapprove any findings of guilty or to 

approve the sentence, except as may be limited by R.C.M. l 107(b)(3)(C)." An 

accused's submissions may include "[a]llegations of errors affecting the legality of 

the findings or sentence." R.C.M. l 105(b)(2)(A). 

3 
SOLOMON-ARMY 20160456 

reassess appellant's sentence after we set the sentence aside. Even if we erred, this 

court then possessed and still possesses the authority to reassess appellant's 

sentence. See Winckelmann, 73 M.J. at 15 ( courts of criminal appeals have "broad 

discretion" in deciding to reassess a sentence to cure error as well as in arriving at 

the reassessed sentence). We exercised this authority in our memorandum opinion 

when we stated "in reassessing the sentence" that appellant's sentence "would have 

been at least a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for twenty-four months, 

forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade of E-1." Solomon, 

2019 CCA LEXIS 149, at *37 n. 23. 

We have again closely reviewed appellant's record of trial and are satisfied 

that the sentence adjudged for the offenses we affirm would have been at least a badconduct discharge, confinement for twenty-four months, forfeiture of all pay and 

allowances, and reduction to the grade of E-1. See Winckelmann, 73 M.J. at 15-16; 

Sales, 22 M.J. at 308. This reassessment is both appropriate and purges the record 

as it stands of error. See UCMJ, art. 63 

CONCLUSION 

Specification 2 of Charge III is DISMISSED. We reassess the sentence and 

affirm no more than a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for twenty-four months, 

forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade of E-1. As to any 

sentence to confinement, appellant will be credited with the 243 days of pretrial 

confinement credit originally granted at trial and with an additional 86 days of 

confinement credit for the government's noncompliance with R.C.M. 305. 

Senior Judge BURTON and Judge RODRIGUEZ concur. 

FOR THE COURT: 

Chief Deputy Clerk of Court 

4