## Facts

- John Leverette, Jr., an active-duty Army soldier, visited Fort Campbell, Kentucky while on leave from his duty station.
- A general regulation in effect at Fort Campbell required individuals entering the installation with nongovernment-owned (privately owned) firearms to register those firearms with the Office of the Provost Marshal.
- Leverette brought his personal handgun onto Fort Campbell without registering it.
- Leverette was unaware of the firearm-registration requirement at the time he brought the handgun onto the installation.
- Leverette used the handgun to rob a drug dealer on the installation.
- Leverette was charged with multiple offenses, including disobeying a lawful general regulation in violation of Article 92(1), UCMJ, based on the failure to register the handgun.
- Leverette pleaded guilty, and a military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted him pursuant to his pleas.
- The convening authority approved the findings and sentence, and the case was reviewed by the United States Army Court of Military Review under Article 66, UCMJ.
- On appeal, Leverette argued his guilty plea to the Article 92(1) offense was improvident because he was not assigned to Fort Campbell and did not know of the regulation.

## Issues

1. Whether a servicemember on leave, visiting but not assigned to an installation, has a duty to follow that installation’s general regulation requiring registration of privately owned firearms brought onto post.
2. Whether lack of actual knowledge of the general regulation provides a substantial basis to question the providence of a guilty plea to violating Article 92(1), UCMJ.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the findings and sentence, including the Article 92(1) conviction.
- The court treated the Fort Campbell firearm-registration requirement as a lawful general regulation intended to apply to individuals who enter the installation with privately owned firearms.
- The court held that Leverette’s status as a visitor on leave, and his lack of assignment to Fort Campbell, did not remove his duty to comply with the regulation when he entered the post with a privately owned handgun.
- The court held that ignorance of the regulation did not excuse the violation for purposes of Article 92(1) and did not, by itself, make the guilty plea improvident.
- The court concluded the plea record contained an adequate factual basis to support the guilty plea to disobeying a lawful general regulation.

## Legal Principles

- A lawful general regulation may be enforced under Article 92(1), UCMJ, when issued by competent authority and written to apply generally to a defined class, including individuals entering an installation with privately owned firearms.
- A servicemember on leave remains subject to the UCMJ and can be bound by general regulations applicable to the installation he voluntarily enters.
- For Article 92(1) offenses, actual knowledge of a lawful general regulation is not necessarily required; a claim of ignorance does not automatically defeat criminal responsibility where the regulation applies to the accused’s conduct.
- A guilty plea is provident when the accused admits facts establishing the elements of the offense and nothing in the plea inquiry raises a substantial basis in law or fact to question guilt.

## Conclusion

United States v. Leverette affirmed an Article 92(1) conviction based on a guilty plea where a soldier on leave visited Fort Campbell, brought a privately owned handgun onto the installation without registering it as required by a general regulation, and later argued he had no duty to follow the rule because he was not assigned there and lacked actual knowledge; the court held the regulation applied to him upon entry and that his ignorance did not invalidate the plea.


United States v. Leverette, 9 M.J. 627 (1980)