Source: http://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2017-term/united-states-v-blanks/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 01:17:23+00:00

Document:
CAAF decided the Air Force case of United States v. Blanks, 77 M.J. 239, No.17-0404/AF (CAAFlog case page) (link to slip op.), on Wednesday, February 28, 2018. Finding no persuasive reason to overrule 65 years of precedent holding that negligent dereliction of duty is an offense under the UCMJ, CAAF affirms the appellant’s conviction of negligent dereliction and the decision of the Air Force CCA.
Senior Airman (E-4) Blanks was charged with willful dereliction of duty but convicted of the lesser included offense of negligent dereliction of duty. The factual basis for the conviction was that Blanks failed to provide adequate financial support to his wife. Blanks challenged the conviction on appeal, asserting that recent mens rea jurisprudence (the #8 Military Justice Story of 2017), including CAAF’s functionally-unanimous decision in United States v. Haverty, 76 M.J. 199, (C.A.A.F. Apr. 25, 2017) (CAAFlog case page), establishes recklessness as the lowest mens rea which separates wrongful conduct from otherwise innocent conduct, and therefore his conviction for negligent dereliction must be reversed.
In light of this Court’s decision in United States v. Haverty, 76 M.J. 199 (C.A.A.F. 2017) [CAAFlog case page], did the military judge err when he instructed the members Appellant could be convicted of negligent dereliction of duty?
Today the court unanimously rejected the challenge. Acknowledging a “long line of precedent,” Judge Ohlson explains that “the military judge did not err, plainly or otherwise, by instructing the members on the negligent dereliction of duty offense.” Slip op. at 3. The reason is stare decisis.
Article 92(3) addresses one who “is derelict in the performance of his duties.” Twenty-four years ago, CAAF explicitly held that “simple negligence is the proper standard for determining whether the nonperformance of military duty is derelict within the meaning of Article 92(3).” United States v. Lawson, 36 M.J. 415, 416 (C.M.A. 1993). But forty years before that – and only two years after the UCMJ took effect – the court first acknowledged that “when the nonperformance [of a duty] is the result of a lack of ordinary care, the omission is negligent,” and that such negligence can violate Article 92(3). United States v. Grow, 3 U.S.C.M.A. 77, 86-87 (C.M.A. 1953) (quoting Manual for Courts-Martial (1951 ed.), ¶ 171c).
Recently, however, CAAF repeatedly addressed mens rea (the mental state required to commit an offense), and the subject was the #8 Military Justice Story of 2017. It got such attention in part because a functionally-unanimous decision in United States v. Haverty, 76 M.J. 199, (C.A.A.F. Apr. 25, 2017) (CAAFlog case page), applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015), to find that recklessness is the minimum mens rea adequate to sustain a conviction of hazing in violation of Army Regulation 200-20 paragraph 4-20.
Armed with that precedent, Senior Airman (E-4) Blanks challenges his conviction (for the first time on appeal) of negligent dereliction of duty adjudged as a lesser included offense of the charged offense of willful failure to provide adequate financial support to his wife. App. Br. at 2. The underlying facts include that Blanks falsely told his command that he was married to the mother of the child (in order to obtain 10 days of parental leave after the child was born), when Blanks was really married to someone else. Blanks’ brief also offers a soap opera’s worth of additional facts. App. Br. at 3-9.
CAAF’s review, however, will focus on the law. Specifically, Blanks asks CAAF to overrule Lawson and apply Haverty to hold that “recklessness is the lowest mens rea which is necessary to separate wrongful conduct from otherwise innocent conduct,” and therefore “Blanks’ conviction for negligent dereliction of duty must be set aside.” App. Br. at 9 (marks and internal citations omitted).
It has the markings of a tough sell.
IN LIGHT OF THIS COURT’S DECISION IN UNITED STATES v. HAVERTY, 76 M.J. 199 (C.A.A.F. 2017), DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ERR WHEN HE INSTRUCTED THE MEMBERS APPELLANT COULD BE CONVICTED OF NEGLIGENT DERELICTION OF DUTY?
The CCA’s opinion is available here and reveals that the appellant was “charged with willful dereliction of duty for failing to provide adequate support to his wife over a time period that spanned his assignments to both Korea and the United Kingdom, [but] the members instead found Appellant guilty of the lesser-included offense of negligent dereliction of duty.” Slip op. at 5. The CCA decided the case a month before CAAF decided Haverty.
In the Army case of United States v. Haverty, 76 M.J. 199, (C.A.A.F. Apr. 25, 2017) (CAAFlog case page), a functionally-unanimous court applied the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015), to find that recklessness is the minimum mens rea (mental state) adequate to sustain a conviction of hazing in violation of Army Regulation 200-20 paragraph 4-20.
[T]he more reasonable interpretation of this new codal provision is that Congress rejected an exclusive culpable-negligence standard and intended, instead, to punish both types [simple and culpable/gross] of negligent-duty conduct under Article 92(3).
The new legislative term “derelict” was broad enough to include both degrees of negligence and incorporate Navy practice with Army and Air Force practice. Prior to enactment of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in 1950, the Army and Air Force also punished neglect of duty under the general article, Article of War 96. Para. 183a, Manual for Courts-Martial, U.S. Army, 1949 at 255. The Army interpreted the word “neglect” in the general article as simply an omission of conduct. See generally Snedeker, supra at 616. This practice is also referred to in the legislative history with a comment that it was now punishable under the new Article 92(3). Accordingly, it is our conclusion, at the very least, that Congress intended to establish a simple-negligence standard for nonperformance-of-duty derelicts charged under this statute.
36 M.J. at 421. That conclusion, however, now seems to be in doubt.

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