Source: https://www.ucmjdefense.com/resources/sentencing-argument/sentencing-argument/commenting-on-collateral-consequences.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 15:03:09+00:00

Document:
Loss of VA benefits is a relevant consideration on sentencing. United States v. Stargell, 49 M.J. 92 (C.A.A.F. 1998).
Effect of sentence on retirement benefits is relevant.
Defense counsel may introduce evidence of the effect of a punitive discharge on retirement benefits. See Military Judges’ Benchbook para.
For an accused that is a commissioned or warrant officer, it is reasonable that the accused would be permitted to retire but for a punitive discharge.
See also United States v. Washington , 55 M.J. 441 (C.A.A.F. 2001); United States v. Boyd , 55 M.J. 217 (C.A.A.F. 2001); United States v. Luster , 55 M.J. 67 (C.A.A.F. 2001); United States v. Becker , 46 M.J. 141 (C.A.A.F. 1997); United States v. Greaves , 46 M.J. 133 (C.A.A.F. 1997); United States v. Sumrall , 45 M.J. 207 (C.A.A.F. 1996); United States v. Polk , 47 M.J. 116 (C.A.A.F. 1997).
United States v. Stargell, 49 M.J. 92 (C.A.A.F. 1998). Trial counsel argued the accused, with nineteen and a half years, will get an honorable retirement unless the panel gave him a BCD. Military judge provided curative instruction to panel.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.