2000
United
States v. Johnson, 54 MJ 32 (appellant’s commander
wore
multiple hats, one of which involved medical-administrative matters;
medical-administrative matters were handled entirely separate and apart
from
the matters on the criminal justice side, and the fact that appellant’s
conduct
also triggered such medical-administrative matters is not evidence of
unlawful
command influence on the criminal action).
(appellant’s commander wore multiple hats, one of which involved
personnel
matters; although the decision on how to process appellant’s conduct as
a
personnel issue was questioned at levels as high as the Navy Personnel
Bureau,
there was no evidence that anyone on the personnel side contacted
anyone on the
military justice side, and the fact that appellant’s personal conduct
triggered
actions and opinions of a personnel-administrative nature did not
demonstrate
in this case that there was unlawful command influence).
(although there were complaints about the direction of appellant’s
case made
to the Inspector General, the Inspector General recognized the command
influence implications of his potential involvement, and no evidence of
improper command influence on the part of the Inspector General was
identified
by appellant or found in the record).
(although there were discussions of whether to approve any adjudged
dismissal at levels above the convening authority, the convening
authority
expressed that he would not “take a phone call” from higher levels, and
there
was no evidence of any attempt by higher command to influence the
convening
authority).