Filed: Mar. 19, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 23, 2020
Summary: This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition. Before KING, STEPHENS, and KOVAC, Appellate Military Judges _ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Byron P. McCRAY Boatswain’s Mate Second Class Petty Officer (E-5), U.S. Navy Appellant No. 201900272 Decided: 19 March 2020 Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Military Judge: Aaron C. Rugh Sentence adjudged 18 July 2019 by a special court-martial convened at Naval Base San Diego, California consisting o
Summary: This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition. Before KING, STEPHENS, and KOVAC, Appellate Military Judges _ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Byron P. McCRAY Boatswain’s Mate Second Class Petty Officer (E-5), U.S. Navy Appellant No. 201900272 Decided: 19 March 2020 Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Military Judge: Aaron C. Rugh Sentence adjudged 18 July 2019 by a special court-martial convened at Naval Base San Diego, California consisting of..
More
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.
Before
KING, STEPHENS, and KOVAC,
Appellate Military Judges
_________________________
UNITED STATES
Appellee
v.
Byron P. McCRAY
Boatswain’s Mate Second Class Petty Officer (E-5), U.S. Navy
Appellant
No. 201900272
Decided: 19 March 2020
Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
Military Judge:
Aaron C. Rugh
Sentence adjudged 18 July 2019 by a special court-martial convened
at Naval Base San Diego, California consisting of a military judge
sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: bad-conduct
discharge.
For Appellant:
Commander C. Eric Roper, JAGC, USN
For Appellee:
Brian K. Keller, Esq.
_________________________
This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under
NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).
United States v. McCray, NMCCA No. 201900272
_________________________
After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of
error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law
and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to the appellant’s substan-
tial rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
RODGER A. DREW, JR.
Clerk of Court
2