## Facts

- A U.S. Navy enlisted sailor assigned to the U.S.S. Constellation received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for an unauthorized absence and carrying a concealed weapon.
- At the time of NJP, the Constellation was in dry dock for overhaul.
- During the NJP process, the sailor was not advised that he could refuse NJP and demand trial by court-martial (a “Booker warning”).
- The sailor was later tried by special court-martial and convicted of six additional specifications of unauthorized absence.
- In sentencing, the government offered the prior NJP record as aggravating evidence.
- The defense objected, arguing the NJP record was inadmissible because the sailor had not received a Booker warning.
- The military judge admitted the NJP, finding the sailor was “attached to a vessel” for Article 15 purposes despite the ship being in dry dock, so no Booker warning was required.

## Issues

1. Whether a record of prior NJP may be admitted in sentencing when the servicemember did not receive a Booker warning, if the member was “attached to a vessel” within Article 15 while the vessel was in dry dock.
2. Whether assignment to a ship in overhaul/dry dock qualifies as being “attached to a vessel” under Article 15’s exception to the right to demand trial by court-martial.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the decision admitting the NJP record in sentencing.
- The court held that the “attached to a vessel” exception applied even though the ship was in dry dock for overhaul.
- Because the statutory exception removed any right to refuse NJP, the absence of a Booker warning did not invalidate the NJP.
- The NJP record was therefore legally valid and admissible as sentencing evidence for later, separate misconduct.

## Legal Principles

- Booker-type advisements are required only when a servicemember has a statutory right to refuse NJP and demand trial by court-martial.
- Article 15’s “attached to or embarked in a vessel” exception eliminates the election right; where the exception applies, no Booker warning is required.
- “Attached to a vessel” turns on the member’s assignment and command relationship, not whether the vessel is underway or operational.
- A valid NJP for prior, separate misconduct may be admitted as aggravating evidence at sentencing, subject to ordinary relevance and fairness limits.

## Conclusion

The court upheld use of a prior NJP record at sentencing because the sailor’s assignment to a ship in dry dock still placed him within Article 15’s “attached to a vessel” exception, eliminating any entitlement to a Booker warning and leaving the NJP valid and admissible.


United States v. Edwards, 46 M.J. 41 (C.A.A.F. 1997)