## Facts

- Private James A. Pierce stole an aviator kit bag from another soldier.
- For the theft, his commander imposed nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ: 45 days restriction, 45 days extra duty, reduction in grade, and forfeiture of $358 per month for two months.
- Pierce was later charged at a special court-martial with multiple offenses, including a larceny specification based on the same kit bag theft previously addressed by NJP.
- Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, Pierce pleaded guilty to all charges, including the larceny.
- The military judge stated on the record that the prior NJP would be considered in sentencing.
- The court-martial sentenced Pierce to a bad-conduct discharge, 13 months’ confinement, total forfeitures, and further reduction in grade.
- The convening authority reduced the sentence to comply with the pretrial agreement’s limits but did not provide specific, quantifiable credit for the earlier NJP related to the larceny.

## Issues

1. Whether prior Article 15 NJP for an offense bars a later court-martial for the same offense under double jeopardy or due process principles.
2. If a later court-martial is permitted, whether the accused must receive specific credit against the court-martial sentence for the prior NJP imposed for the same misconduct, and how that credit must be reflected.

## Decision

- The court held that Article 15 NJP does not constitute constitutional “jeopardy” and therefore does not bar a subsequent court-martial for the same offense.
- The court held that, as a matter of fundamental fairness, an accused tried by court-martial for misconduct previously punished under Article 15 is entitled to full credit for that prior punishment.
- The required credit must be complete and measurable—“day-for-day, dollar-for-dollar, and stripe-for-stripe.”
- Because the record did not show that Pierce received specific credit for the prior NJP (as opposed to a reduction attributable solely to the pretrial agreement), the court ordered sentencing relief to ensure the required credit was applied.

## Legal Principles

- Nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, is not a criminal conviction for Fifth Amendment double jeopardy purposes and does not preclude later court-martial prosecution for the same misconduct.
- When the same misconduct is punished both by Article 15 and later by court-martial, the accused must receive full credit for all NJP actually suffered: restriction/extra duty time, forfeited pay, and reductions in grade (“day-for-day, dollar-for-dollar, and stripe-for-stripe”).
- The credit requirement rests on fairness and military sentencing policy against double punishment, not on a constitutional bar to prosecution.
- The record must clearly show the amount and manner of credit applied; a generic statement that NJP was “considered,” or an unexplained sentence reduction, is insufficient when it does not demonstrate complete offset for the prior punishment.

## Conclusion

A prior Article 15 does not bar a later court-martial for the same offense, but the court-martial sentence must include explicit, complete credit for the prior NJP to prevent double punishment for the same misconduct.


United States v. Pierce, 27 M.J. 367 (C.M.A. 1989)