## Facts

- Sgt. Matthew K. Travis, a U.S. Marine guard/supervisor at an Iraqi detention facility, participated in misconduct involving attaching electrical wires to control an unruly Iraqi detainee.
- Travis pleaded guilty at a general court-martial to willful dereliction of duty, attempted cruelty and maltreatment, conspiracy to commit cruelty and maltreatment, and making a false official statement.
- The court-martial sentenced Travis to a bad-conduct discharge, 15 months’ confinement, and reduction to E-1; the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and reduced confinement to 12 months.
- Post-trial, the staff judge advocate (SJA) served the staff judge advocate’s recommendation (SJAR) on defense counsel; defense counsel requested extra time to submit clemency matters while awaiting a letter supporting clemency from Lt. Gen. James Mattis.
- A dispute arose over whether the defense clemency package (including the Mattis letter) was timely submitted; the SJA forwarded the SJAR to the convening authority (CA) without the clemency materials, and the CA initially approved the sentence without considering them.
- About a year later, after the defense produced evidence of timely submission, the same CA withdrew the initial action, considered the clemency materials, and again approved the sentence (as reduced on appeal).

## Issues

1. Under R.C.M. 1105–1107, whether an accused has a right to submit clemency matters and whether the convening authority must consider timely submitted matters before taking action.
2. Whether the accused suffered material prejudice under Article 59(a), UCMJ, when the SJA did not provide clemency materials to the convening authority before initial action and did not forward them for roughly a year, where the same convening authority later reopened the case, considered the materials, and reaffirmed the sentence.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces affirmed the service court’s decision.
- The court recognized the accused’s right to submit clemency matters and the convening authority’s duty to consider timely submissions.
- Assuming error in the failure to provide the clemency package before the first action and in the delay, the court held Travis showed no material prejudice to a substantial right because the same convening authority later considered the complete clemency submission and reached the same outcome.

## Legal Principles

- A convicted servicemember may submit clemency matters that reasonably tend to affect the convening authority’s decision on findings or sentence within the time limits of R.C.M. 1105, subject to extensions for good cause.
- Failure to submit clemency matters within the prescribed time may waive the right to submit them.
- A convening authority must consider timely submitted clemency matters before taking action under the post-trial rules.
- Clemency is a discretionary command function; appellate courts do not reweigh the merits of clemency requests or the value of particular recommendations.
- Post-trial error warrants relief only if it materially prejudices a substantial right under Article 59(a), UCMJ; a second, fully informed action by the same convening authority may show the absence of prejudice.
- Staff judge advocates should avoid rushing post-trial action when aware the defense intends to submit clemency matters, particularly when communications are difficult.

## Conclusion

CAAF held that even if the SJA improperly failed to forward clemency materials before the initial convening-authority action and delayed doing so for about a year, Travis was not materially prejudiced because the same convening authority later withdrew the action, considered the complete clemency submission, and reaffirmed the sentence.


United States v. Travis, 66 M.J. 301 (C.A.A.F. 2008)