## Facts

- Sean M. Tardif, a U.S. Coast Guard petty officer, was tried by a general court-martial with officer and enlisted members.
- He was convicted of a 12-day unauthorized absence and two specifications of assault on a child under sixteen, in violation of Articles 86 and 128, UCMJ.
- The adjudged sentence included a dishonorable discharge, three years’ confinement, total forfeitures, and reduction to E-1.
- The convening authority approved the sentence but reduced confinement to 24 months.
- Post-trial processing included an “unexplained and unreasonable” 115-day delay between the convening authority’s action and forwarding the record to Coast Guard headquarters.
- The Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals (CGCCA) described the delay as “egregious” and as casting “a shadow of unfairness” on the military justice system.
- The CGCCA set aside the unauthorized absence conviction, reassessed and affirmed the sentence, and later granted 12 days’ confinement credit, but declined additional relief for delay because it found no material prejudice to substantial rights.

## Issues

1. Whether a Court of Criminal Appeals may grant relief for unreasonable and unexplained post-trial delay under Article 66(c), UCMJ, even when the appellant cannot show material prejudice under Article 59(a), UCMJ.
2. Whether Article 66(c)’s mandate to approve only what “should be approved” is distinct from Article 59(a)’s limitation on setting aside findings or sentence for legal error absent material prejudice.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces held that a Court of Criminal Appeals has authority under Article 66(c) to grant appropriate relief for unreasonable and unexplained post-trial delay.
- The court held that this Article 66(c) authority is distinct from Article 59(a) and does not require a predicate showing of material prejudice.
- The court set aside the CGCCA decision and remanded for reconsideration because the CGCCA treated itself as constrained by Article 59(a) and did not fully exercise its Article 66(c) discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Article 66(c), UCMJ grants Courts of Criminal Appeals broad power to affirm only those findings and sentences they find correct in law and fact and determine, based on the entire record, should be approved.
- Article 59(a), UCMJ limits reversal for legal error to errors that materially prejudice an accused’s substantial rights, but it does not restrict the separate sentence-approval discretion conferred by Article 66(c).
- Unreasonable post-trial delay may justify discretionary appellate relief under Article 66(c) as part of sentence appropriateness review and to protect the fairness and perceived legitimacy of the military justice system, even absent demonstrated prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court clarified that military intermediate appellate courts may grant relief for unreasonable post-trial delay under Article 66(c) without requiring proof of material prejudice under Article 59(a), and it remanded for the CGCCA to decide whether relief was warranted under that correct standard.


United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2002)