Court Opinion

ID: 9836922
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:32.082113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.346488
License: Public Domain

CRAWFORD, Judge
(dissenting):
I agree with the dissent of Judge Gierke and write separately to point out pertinent statutory and regulatory provisions. Both regulation and statutes support the advice given to appellant that he might not be allowed to retire even if his sentence did not include a dismissal. Additionally, 10 USC §§ 1161(b)(2) and 1167 (enacted after appellant’s trial), and its predecessors, which have existed for tens of years,* permit the Presi*208dent to drop an officer from the rolls if the member was sentenced to confinement. The statutes are implemented by Naval Military Personnel Manual and Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1920.6A. It is unfortunate that the majority will not give judicial deference to the court below, a factfinding court, Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 866(e)(1994), as to their finding that it is “incredible [Davis] ... had no idea that he might not be allowed to retire, if his sentence did not include a dismissal.” 47 MJ 707, 713. If there is any question regarding implementation of these statutes and the Navy instruction, this Court has the option of remanding the question to the Court of Criminal Appeals, which would be more familiar than this Court with the implementing instructions and regulations.

 Cf. Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 119 S.Ct. 1538, 1541 n. 1, 143 L.Ed.2d 720 (1999). This Court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the President and other military officials from dropping Gold*208smith, who was tried in 1994, id. at 1541, from the rolls under 10 USC § 1161(b)(2).