10 U.S.C. § 860a
Art. 60a. Limited authority to act on sentence in specified post-trial circumstances
Section effective on
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (24 in the last 5 years), 2020–2026 · leading case: United States v. Aumont (en banc), No. ACM 39673, 2020 CCA LEXIS 416 (A.F.C.C.A. Nov. 20, 2020).
United States v. Aumont (en banc), No. ACM 39673, 2020 CCA LEXIS 416 (A.F.C.C.A. Nov. 20, 2020). “) (2019 MCM), are to Articles 60a and 60b, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 860a, 860b, as applicable. 20 United States v.”
United States v. Lopez, No. ACM S32597, 2020 WL 7233070 (A.F.C.C.A. Dec. 8, 2020). “11In contrast, Article 60a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 860a, which went into effect on 1 January 2019, does not require the convening authority to take action on the sentence of every 5 United States v.”
United States v. Hong, No. 39830 (A.F.C.C.A. May 26, 2021). “The convening authority did not err because Article 60a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 860a, contained in the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.”
United States v. Barrick, No. ACM S32579, 2020 CCA LEXIS 346 (A.F.C.C.A. Sept. 30, 2020). “5 See Articles 60a and 60b, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 860a, 860b (2019 MCM). In certain cases the convening authority may also act to “disapprove” a sentence in whole or in part.”
United States v. Vongphachanh, No. 40741 (A.F.C.C.A. May 29, 2026). “See 10 U.S.C. § 860a(a)(1)(B); R.C.M. 1109(b).”
United States v. Lopez, No. S32597 (f rev) (A.F.C.C.A. July 9, 2021). “Although the scope of the convening authority’s power to affect the adjudged findings and sentence in Appellant’s case was signifi- cantly more limited than at the time Wheelus was decided, see 10 U.S.C. § 860a, a convening authority’s decision whether or not to grant clemency…”
United States v. Serjak, No. 40392 (rem) (A.F.C.C.A. May 11, 2026). “Article 60a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 860a. In the interest of judicial economy, we have decided to correct the error through our appellate review authority.”
United States v. Hernandez, No. ACM S32641(f rev) (A.F.C.C.A. Dec. 22, 2020). “Consequently, and based on the offenses and Appellant’s sentence, Article 60a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 860a, and R.C.M. 1109, guided the convening authority’s decision on action.”
United States v. Way, No. ACM 39723 (A.F.C.C.A. Dec. 23, 2020). “, dissenting) (finding no error after applying Article 60a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 860a (2019 MCM)). Instead, we adhere to the approach we used in prior cases where the convening authority’s decision memoranda either stated no action was taken on the sentence, or in the case.”
United States v. Walker, No. ACM 39745 (A.F.C.C.A. Jan. 19, 2021). “9 In contrast, Article 60a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 860a, which went into effect on 1 January 2019, does not require the convening authority to take action on the sentence of every court-martial.”
United States v. Apostol, No. ACM S32609 (A.F.C.C.A. Feb. 4, 2021). “Appellant then returned to the operations group building, stole more 6Based on the dates of the offenses and Appellant’s sentence, Article 60a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 860a, and R.C.M. 1109 guided the convening authority’s decision on action.”
United States v. Kubiak, No. ACM S32659 (f rev) (A.F.C.C.A. Feb. 8, 2021). “Articles 60a and 60b, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 860a, 860b, and Rules for Courts-Martial 1109 and 1110 (2019 MCM), applied to the conven- ing authority’s decision on action.”
10 U.S.C. § 860a(a)(1)(A): 5 cases
United States v. Aumont (en banc), No. ACM 39673, 2020 CCA LEXIS 416 (A.F.C.C.A. Nov. 20, 2020). “) (2019 MCM), are to Articles 60a and 60b, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 860a, 860b, as applicable. 20 United States v.”
United States v. Barrick, No. ACM S32579, 2020 CCA LEXIS 346 (A.F.C.C.A. Sept. 30, 2020). “5 See Articles 60a and 60b, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 860a, 860b (2019 MCM). In certain cases the convening authority may also act to “disapprove” a sentence in whole or in part.”
United States v. Lopez, No. ACM S32597, 2020 WL 7233070 (A.F.C.C.A. Dec. 8, 2020). “11In contrast, Article 60a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 860a, which went into effect on 1 January 2019, does not require the convening authority to take action on the sentence of every 5 United States v.”
United States v. KAPAYOU, No. 202300145 (N.M.C.C.A. Dec. 28, 2023).
United States v. Hong, No. 39830 (A.F.C.C.A. May 26, 2021). “The convening authority did not err because Article 60a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 860a, contained in the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.”
10 U.S.C. § 860a(a)(1)(B): 1 case
United States v. Vongphachanh, No. 40741 (A.F.C.C.A. May 29, 2026). “See 10 U.S.C. § 860a(a)(1)(B); R.C.M. 1109(b).”
10 U.S.C. § 860a(a)(3): 1 case
United States v. Johnson, No. 24-0004/SF, 2025 CAAF LEXIS 499 (C.A.A.F. June 24, 2025).
10 U.S.C. § 860a(b)(1): 1 case
United States v. Vongphachanh, No. 40741 (A.F.C.C.A. May 29, 2026). “See 10 U.S.C. § 860a(a)(1)(B); R.C.M. 1109(b).”
10 U.S.C. § 860a(b)(1)(A): 4 cases
United States v. Barrick, No. ACM S32579, 2020 CCA LEXIS 346 (A.F.C.C.A. Sept. 30, 2020). “5 See Articles 60a and 60b, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 860a, 860b (2019 MCM). In certain cases the convening authority may also act to “disapprove” a sentence in whole or in part.”
United States v. Aumont (en banc), No. ACM 39673, 2020 CCA LEXIS 416 (A.F.C.C.A. Nov. 20, 2020). “) (2019 MCM), are to Articles 60a and 60b, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 860a, 860b, as applicable. 20 United States v.”
United States v. Lopez, No. ACM S32597, 2020 WL 7233070 (A.F.C.C.A. Dec. 8, 2020). “11In contrast, Article 60a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 860a, which went into effect on 1 January 2019, does not require the convening authority to take action on the sentence of every 5 United States v.”
United States v. Hong, No. 39830 (A.F.C.C.A. May 26, 2021). “The convening authority did not err because Article 60a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 860a, contained in the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.”
10 U.S.C. § 860a(b)(1)(B): 1 case
United States v. Barnaby, No. 39866 (f rev) (A.F.C.C.A. Oct. 19, 2021).
10 U.S.C. § 860a(b)(2): 3 cases
United States v. Haynes, No. 40306 (A.F.C.C.A. Aug. 30, 2023).
United States v. Lopez, No. 24-0226/CG (C.A.A.F. Sept. 2, 2025).
United States v. Serjak, No. 40392 (rem) (A.F.C.C.A. May 11, 2026). “Article 60a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 860a. In the interest of judicial economy, we have decided to correct the error through our appellate review authority.”
10 U.S.C. § 860a(c): 1 case
United States v. RIOS-MOJICA, No. 202100201 (N.M.C.C.A. Dec. 29, 2021).
10 U.S.C. § 860a(d): 1 case
United States v. Lopez, No. ACM S32597, 2020 WL 7233070 (A.F.C.C.A. Dec. 8, 2020). “11In contrast, Article 60a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 860a, which went into effect on 1 January 2019, does not require the convening authority to take action on the sentence of every 5 United States v.”
10 U.S.C. § 860a(e)(1): 1 case
United States v. Vongphachanh, No. 40741 (A.F.C.C.A. May 29, 2026). “See 10 U.S.C. § 860a(a)(1)(B); R.C.M. 1109(b).”
10 U.S.C. § 860a(f)(1): 1 case
United States v. Aumont (en banc), No. ACM 39673, 2020 CCA LEXIS 416 (A.F.C.C.A. Nov. 20, 2020). “) (2019 MCM), are to Articles 60a and 60b, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 860a, 860b, as applicable. 20 United States v.”
10 U.S.C. § 860a(f)(2): 4 cases
United States v. Barrick, No. ACM S32579, 2020 CCA LEXIS 346 (A.F.C.C.A. Sept. 30, 2020). “5 See Articles 60a and 60b, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 860a, 860b (2019 MCM). In certain cases the convening authority may also act to “disapprove” a sentence in whole or in part.”
United States v. Aumont (en banc), No. ACM 39673, 2020 CCA LEXIS 416 (A.F.C.C.A. Nov. 20, 2020). “) (2019 MCM), are to Articles 60a and 60b, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 860a, 860b, as applicable. 20 United States v.”
United States v. Lopez, No. ACM S32597, 2020 WL 7233070 (A.F.C.C.A. Dec. 8, 2020). “11In contrast, Article 60a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 860a, which went into effect on 1 January 2019, does not require the convening authority to take action on the sentence of every 5 United States v.”
United States v. Hong, No. 39830 (A.F.C.C.A. May 26, 2021). “The convening authority did not err because Article 60a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 860a, contained in the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.