UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

CAMPANELLA. HERRING, and PENLAND 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Private E2 DENNIS BAILON 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20160240 

Headquarters, 7th Infantry Division 

Sean F. Mangan, Military Judge 

Lieutenant Colonel James A. Nelson, Staff Judge Advocate 

For Appellant: Major Andres Vazquez, Jr., JA; Captain Joshua B. Fix, JA (on brief); 

Captain Katherine L. DePaul, JA; Captain Joshua B. Fix, JA (on reply brief). 

For Appellee: Colonel Mark H. Sydenham, JA; Lieutenant Colonel A.G. Courie III, 

JA; Major Anne C. Hsieh, JA; Captain Jonathan S. Reiner, JA (on brief). 

10 January 2017 

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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

PENLAND, Judge: 

 A military judge convicted appellant, consistent with his pleas, of two 

specifications of failure to obey his commander’s order not to leave Joint Base 

Lewis-McChord and assault consummated by a battery,1

 in violation of Articles 92 

and 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice [hereinafter UCMJ], 10 U.S.C. §§ 892, 

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

confinement for seven months and one day, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and 

reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. In accordance with a pretrial agreement, the 

convening authority limited appellant’s confinement to six months, and approved the 

remainder of the sentence. 

 

1

 Appellant pleaded guilty to this offense as a lesser-included offense to the charge 

of abusive sexual contact, Article 120, UCMJ. 
BAILON — ARMY 20160240 

2

We review this case under Article 66, UCMJ. Appellant raises one 

assignment of error, which warrants brief discussion but no relief. We have 

considered appellant’s matters personally submitted pursuant to United States v. 

Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982); they merit neither. 

Appellant now asserts the military judge determined the adjudged sentence 

based upon the incorrect maximum punishment. The military judge indeed erred in 

determining the maximum sentence. To the extent appellant asserts a causal 

relationship between the error and his sentence, we see none. 

During the Care inquiry,2 the military judge asked for the government’s views 

regarding the maximum punishment, and trial counsel responded the maximum 

punishment was a bad-conduct discharge, eighteen months confinement, forfeiture of 

all pay and allowances, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. When asked 

whether he agreed with this assessment, defense counsel said, “Yes, sir.” The 

military judge then advised appellant of the maximum punishment, consistent with 

the views of government and defense counsel. 

 As both parties now belatedly agree, the maximum punishment–which we 

determine de novo–is a bad-conduct discharge, eight months confinement, forfeiture 

of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.3 The military 

judge and both parties at trial overstated the maximum confinement term by ten 

months. Appellant does not claim ineffective assistance of counsel. Additionally, 

his appellate counsel specifically disclaims any argument that appellant’s guilty 

pleas were improvident. It is noteworthy that appellant also makes no post-hoc 

effort to disturb the protections of his pretrial agreement, which allowed him to 

avoid an Article 120, UCMJ, conviction. 

 While the military judge erred in determining the maximum punishment, our 

careful review of this record–including the aggravation evidence–yields confidence 

that the error did not materially prejudice appellant’s substantial rights. United 

States v. Baransky, 17 M.J. 54 (C.M.A. 1983). 

 

2 United States v. Care, 18 U.S.C.M.A. 535, 40 C.M.R. 247 (1969). 

3 United States v. Phillips, 74 M.J. 20, 22-23 (C.A.A.F. 2015); United States v. 

Amaya, 74 M.J. 264 (C.A.A.F. 2015); MCM, 1984, Change 1 (Exec. Order No. 

12,473, 49 F.R. 17152 (13 Apr. 1984), as amended by Exec. Order No. 12,484, 49 

F.R. 28825 (13 Jul. 1984)). 
BAILON — ARMY 20160240 

3

CONCLUSION 

The finding of guilty and the sentence are AFFIRMED. 

Senior Judge CAMPANELLA and Judge HERRING concur. 

FOR THE COURT: 

 JOHN P. TAITT 

Deputy Clerk of Court 

JOHN P. TAITT 

Deputy Clerk of Court 

FOR THE COURT: