## Facts

- A commissioned officer was charged and convicted at a general court-martial of conduct unbecoming an officer under Article 133, UCMJ, based on drug-related misconduct.
- The defense sought to introduce character evidence that the accused was regarded as a good or exemplary military officer in performing his duties.
- The military judge excluded the proffered good-officer character evidence on the ground that it was not pertinent to drug-abuse-related misconduct.
- The service Court of Military Review affirmed the conviction.
- The United States Court of Military Appeals granted review to address the exclusion of defense character evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether, in an Article 133 prosecution predicated on drug-related misconduct, evidence of the accused’s good character as a military officer is a “pertinent” character trait admissible under the military rules governing character evidence.
2. Whether the military judge abused discretion, or otherwise committed prejudicial error, by excluding the defense’s good-officer character evidence as not pertinent.

## Decision

- The United States Court of Military Appeals reversed the decision affirming the conviction.
- The court held that good-officer character evidence was pertinent to an Article 133 charge, even when the underlying misconduct involved drugs.
- The court concluded the military judge erred by excluding the proffered defense character evidence on a categorical pertinence rationale.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the ruling.

## Legal Principles

- An accused may offer evidence of a pertinent character trait at findings; “pertinent” requires a logical relationship between the trait and the charged misconduct.
- In prosecutions for conduct unbecoming an officer under Article 133, character evidence concerning the accused’s standing as a good officer may be pertinent because the offense turns on conduct inconsistent with officer standards.
- A military judge may not categorically exclude good-officer (“good soldier”) character evidence as irrelevant to drug-related misconduct where the proffered trait bears on law-abidingness, judgment, and conformity with military standards.
- Erroneous exclusion of admissible defense character evidence can be prejudicial because such evidence may itself support a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court held that, for an Article 133 charge based on drug-related misconduct, the defense may present good-officer character evidence as a pertinent trait, and excluding it as categorically not pertinent is reversible error requiring remand.


United States v. Belz, 20 M.J. 33 (C.M.A. 1985)