United States v. Roller

United States v. Roller

Opinion

 [*264] Opinion of the Court

COX, Judge:

1. Pursuant to his pleas, appellant was found guilty of violating OPNAV ¹ INST 5510.1H "by failing to ensure that unauthorized persons did not gain access to classified material in his possession," and violating 18 USC § 793(f)(1) through "gross negligence [by] removing . . . classified documents and material relating to the National Defense . . . from its proper place of custody and allowing the material to be lost or delivered to another," in violation of Articles 92 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 892 and 934, respectively. The military judge sentenced appellant to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for 3 years, forfeiture of [**2]  $ 400.00 pay per month for 36 months, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the discharge, ordered it executed; however, he suspended execution of confinement in excess of 10 months for a period of 1 year from the date of trial. The Court of Military Review ² approved the findings and the sentence. 37 M.J. 1093 (1993).

 [*265]  2. On February 1, 1994, this Court granted review of the following issue: ³ 

WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF MILITARY REVIEW ERRED WHERE IT INTER- PRETED THAT PART OF 18 USC § 793(f)(1) WHICH PROHIBITS A CLASSIFIED MATERIAL CUSTODIAN FROM "PERMITTING" REMOVAL OF SUCH MATERIAL FROM ITS PROPER PLACE AS NOT REQUIRING REMOVAL BY A PERSON OTHER THAN SUCH CUSTODIAN.

We hold that there was no error.

 [**3]  I

3. Appellant was responsible for all the "code word" and other classified material coming into the Intelligence Division at Headquarters, United States Marine Corps, Washington, DC. It was not unusual for him to place certain materials in his desk. Over the course of several months, classified documents were placed there by him. At some point, appellant's supervisor charged that he was disrespectful to his officer-in-charge and was derelict in the performance of his duties. These charges were later dismissed. Due to this conflict with his supervisor, appellant requested a transfer, and, on his last day, he hastily packed his gym bag with the personal effects from his desk. Unfortunately for appellant, in his haste he inadvertently took along with his personal papers the classified documents that had been placed in his desk. Several weeks later, appellant discovered his error, but fearing punishment if he now returned them, he decided to keep the documents stored in a drawer in his garage. His plan was to destroy the documents once he reached his new duty station.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.