United
States v. Nerad, 69 M.J. 138 (while the CCA
clearly has the authority to
disapprove part or all of the sentence and findings, nothing suggests
that
Congress intended to provide the CCAs with unfettered discretion to do
so for
any reason, for no reason, or on equitable grounds, which is a function
of the
command prerogative of the convening authority).
(granting mercy for any reason
or no reason is
within the purview of the convening authority).
(decisions not to prosecute or
to grant
requests for clemency are matters of command prerogative, and, as such,
are for
the convening authority, not the CCA).
United
States v. Scott, 66 M.J. 1 (the
convening authority is presumed to know the difference between
clemency materials and evidence adduced at trial).
United
States v. Lee, 50 MJ 296 (even though appellant’s
offenses
predated the effective date of Article 58b, thus not being subject to
automatic
forfeiture, the convening authority still had the power to remit or
suspend any
or all of the adjudged forfeitures as a matter of clemency).