UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

KERN, ALDYKIEWICZ and MARTIN 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Private First Class JAMES R. REMMERS 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20120068 

Headquarters, Fort Drum 

Gregory R. Bockin, Military Judge 

Lieutenant Colonel Olga M. Anderson, Acting Staff Judge Advocate (pretrial) 

Colonel Michael O. Lacey, Staff Judge Advocate (post-trial) 

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

Jamison, JA; Major Jacob D. Bashore, JA; Captain Susrut A. Carpenter, JA (on 

brief). 

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

JA; Captain Jessica J. Morales, JA (on brief). 

12 March 2013 

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

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

Per Curiam: 

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

consistent with his pleas, of three specifications of absence without leave, three 

specifications of wrongful use of marijuana and one specification of wrongful use of 

cocaine, in violation of Articles 86 and 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 

10 U.S.C. §§ 886 and 912 (2006) [hereinafter, UCMJ]. The military judge sentenced 

appellant to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for eight months, and reduction to 

the grade of E-1. 

In his action, the convening authority stated “only so much of the sentence 

extending to reduction to Private (E1), confinement for four months, and a bad 
REMMERS—ARMY 20120068 

2

conduct discharge, will be executed.”*

 The action failed to explicitly approve or 

disapprove any part of the findings or sentence. 

Rule for Courts-Martial [hereinafter R.C.M.] 1107(d)(1) requires that a 

convening authority’s “approval or disapproval [of the sentence] shall be explicitly 

stated.” If a convening authority fails to explicitly approve or disapprove any part 

of the sentence in his or her action, then the action is ambiguous. United States v. 

Fillinger, 69 M.J. 426 (C.A.A.F. 9 Nov. 2010) (summ. disp.). R.C.M. 1107(g) 

provides that the same authority can be instructed to withdraw the original action 

and substitute a corrected action. Id. Normally, this court would lack jurisdiction 

unless a convening authority has approved the findings and sentence. See UCMJ 

art. 66. Regarding post-trial matters, however, this court does have the “jurisdiction 

to refrain from addressing the merits of a case, and instead return the action to the 

convening authority if further clarification of the meaning of the action is 

necessary.” United States v. Politte, 63 M.J. 24, 25 C.A.A.F. 2006). 

In this case, the convening authority’s action is ambiguous because he did not 

approve or disapprove any part of the sentence. Accordingly, the convening 

authority’s action, dated 29 May 2012, is set aside. The record of trial is returned to 

The Judge Advocate General for a new action by the same convening authority in 

accordance with Article 60(c), UCMJ. 

FOR THE COURT: 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

 Clerk of Court 

 

*

 The convening authority attempted to reduce the sentence in order to comply with 

the terms of the pretrial agreement. 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

Clerk of Court 

FOR THE COURT: