Case: UNITED STATES, Appellee v. LARRY J. McMULLEN, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant
Abbreviation: United States v. McMullen
Decision Date: 1972-06-23
Docket Number: No. 25,356
Citation: 21 C.M.A. 465
Volume: 21
Reporter: Decisions of the United States Court of Military Appeals
Court: United States Court of Military Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: UNITED STATES, Appellee v LARRY J. McMULLEN, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant
Judges: Judges Quinn and Duncan concur.
Pages: 465–466

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Appellee v LARRY J. McMULLEN, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant
21 USCMA 465, 45 CMR 239
No. 25,356
June 23, 1972
Lieutenant Thomas M. Geisler, Jr., JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.
Commander Michael F. Fasanaro, Jr., JAGC, USN, and Captain John P. Proctor, USMCR, were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion:
Opinion of the Court
DARDEN, Chief Judge:
A special court-martial convicted the accused of two violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Ar-tide 91, 10 USC § 891. We are concerned only with one of these, the specification of which alleges that the accused disobeyed an order "to get a haircut."
At the trial, it appeared that the accused in fact had his hair cut, but that this was not in accord with pertinent regulations. In his findings, the military judge modified the specification in question by inserting the word "regulation," causing it to charge disobedience of an order "to get a regulation haircut." (Emphasis supplied.)
When acting as a fact finder, a military judge may amend a specification by exceptions and substitutions. He may not, however, change the nature of the offense charged by addition of new matter. United States v Hopf, 1 USCMA 584, 5 CMR 12 (1952). In the instant case, this principle was transgressed.
The findings of guilty of specification 8 of the Charge are set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. The Court of Military Review may reassess the sentence on the basis of the remaining findings of guilty.
Judges Quinn and Duncan concur.