## Facts

- Colonel Lawrence Mack was the installation staff chaplain at Fort Bliss with about 23 years of service and a previously strong record.
- Mack suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and developed a gambling addiction connected to that condition.
- Over roughly 17 months, Mack submitted payment requests to a military fund for about $75,000 in nonexistent religious-book orders.
- Mack deposited the resulting funds into a personal account and lost the money gambling, sometimes while on duty.
- When questioned, Mack lied about the transactions and attempted to conceal the scheme.
- Major General Dennis Cavin, Fort Bliss’s commanding general, was Mack’s senior commander and the general court-martial convening authority.
- Cavin and Mack had close professional and personal contacts: Cavin regularly attended Mack’s sermons; their families socialized; and Mack officiated Cavin’s daughter’s wedding.
- After the misconduct was discovered, Cavin relieved Mack of his duties, denied Mack’s request to retire instead of being prosecuted, and referred the case to a general court-martial.
- Cavin approved a pretrial agreement that allowed Mack to seek treatment before serving confinement.
- After trial, Cavin provided post-trial relief by disapproving the sentence portion requiring repayment and waiving six months of automatic forfeitures so Mack’s family could continue receiving pay for part of his confinement.
- On appeal, Mack argued for the first time that Cavin was disqualified to act as convening authority because Cavin was an “accuser,” based on (1) their relationship and (2) Cavin’s command interest in prosecuting misconduct by a senior staff officer.

## Issues

1. Whether the convening authority was disqualified as an “accuser” because of a close personal and pastoral/social relationship with the accused.
2. Whether a convening authority becomes an “accuser” due to a command interest in prosecuting serious misconduct by a member of the commander’s staff.
3. Whether raising the disqualification claim for the first time on appeal warranted relief absent a showing of prejudice.

## Decision

- The Army Court of Criminal Appeals held that MG Cavin was not an “accuser” and was not disqualified from acting as convening authority.
- The court concluded that personal familiarity, including the pastoral and social connections between Cavin and Mack, did not by itself show a personal stake in the outcome that required disqualification.
- The court rejected the argument that a commander’s interest in good order and discipline, even when the misconduct involves a senior staff member, amounts to a disqualifying personal interest.
- The court viewed Cavin’s pretrial agreement and post-trial clemency actions as inconsistent with a claim that Cavin acted out of personal hostility.
- Because the issue was not raised at trial and Mack did not demonstrate prejudice to substantial rights, the court affirmed the findings and the sentence as approved.

## Legal Principles

- A convening authority is disqualified as an “accuser” when the official has a personal interest in the prosecution such that a reasonable person would doubt the official’s ability to act impartially.
- A close professional, social, or pastoral relationship between a commander and an accused, without additional facts showing a personal stake in the case, does not automatically make the commander an “accuser.”
- A commander’s ordinary command responsibility to address misconduct and maintain discipline does not, standing alone, create “accuser” status.
- When a claim of convening-authority disqualification is raised for the first time on appeal, the appellant must show error and resulting prejudice to obtain relief.
- Pretrial and post-trial actions that show restraint or favorable treatment may be considered when evaluating whether the convening authority acted from personal hostility rather than from lawful command judgment.

## Conclusion

United States v. Mack, 56 M.J. 786 (2002), held that a commanding general who had close personal and pastoral ties to an accused chaplain was not disqualified as an “accuser” where the record showed no personal stake in the prosecution beyond normal command responsibilities, and where the accused raised the disqualification theory only on appeal without showing prejudice.
