Court Opinion

ID: 9836988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:53.06856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.674037
License: Public Domain

GIERKE, Judge
(concurring):
The record reflects that officers of all grades were considered and that officers down to and including the grade of chief warrant officer 2 were detailed. A captain was detailed but relieved when appellant requested enlisted members. Two warrant officers were selected and then removed from the list for reasons not reflected in the record.
With respect to enlisted members, the record reflects that they were nominated in grades down to private first class. Because appellant was a specialist (E-4), it was not improper to exclude soldiers in grades private first class (E-3) and specialist (E-4) from consideration. See RCM 912(f)(l)(K), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (1995 ed.); * see also United States v. Upshaw, 49 MJ 111, 112 (1998). While no soldiers in the grades of sergeant, staff sergeant, and sergeant first class were detailed, the record is devoid of any evidence that they were systematically excluded from consideration. See United States v. White, 48 MJ 251, 254-55 (1998) (permissible to “look first at the senior grades,” so long as lower eligible grades not systematically excluded).
Based on this record, I am satisfied that the issue of court-stacking was not raised. Accordingly, I concur.

This provision is unchanged in the 1998 edition of the Manual for Courts-Martial.