2023 (October Term)
United States v. Parino-Ramcharan, 84 M.J. 445 (the initial review of appellant's general court-martial conviction by a judge advocate under Article 65(d), UCMJ, was proper where he was not eligible for direct appeal under Article 66(b), UCMJ, because he had not received a sentence of confinement exceeding six months a dismissal).
(the Judge Advocate General had authority to review and act on appellant's case under Article 69(a) and (c)(1)(A), UCMJ, where Article 69(c)(1)(A), UCMJ, contained a simple scrivener's error, a mistake made by someone unfamiliar with the law's object and design; Article 69(c)(1)(A), UCMJ, should be read as if the references to "section 865(b)" and "article . . . 65(b)" are references to "section 865(d)" and "article . . . 65(d)"; accordingly, upon application by appellant, the Judge Advocate General had authority to review appellant's general court-martial conviction for wrongful use of a controlled substance where his conviction had been reviewed by a judge advocate because it was not eligible for direct review for not having a sentence of confinement exceeding six months or a dismissal).