U.S. Code » Title 10 » Subtitle Subtitle A— General Military Law › Part PART II— PERSONNEL › Chapter CHAPTER 47— UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER IX— POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND REVIEW OF COURTS-MARTIAL

10 U.S.C. § 860a

Art. 60a. Limited authority to act on sentence in specified post-trial circumstances

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)In General.—(1) The convening authority of a general or special court-martial described in paragraph (2)—(A) may act on the sentence of the court-martial only as provided in subsection (b), (c), or (d); and(B) may not act on the findings of the court-martial.(2) The courts-martial referred to in paragraph (1) are the following:(A) A general or special court-martial in which the maximum sentence of confinement established under subsection (a) of section 856 of this title (article 56) for any offense of which the accused is found guilty is more than two years.(B) A general or special court-martial in which the total of the sentences of confinement imposed, running consecutively, is more than six months.(C) A general or special court-martial in which the sentence imposed includes a dismissal, dishonorable discharge, or bad-conduct discharge.(D) A general or special court-martial in which the accused is found guilty of a violation of subsection (a) or (b) of section 920 of this title (article 120), section 920b of this title (article 120b), or such other offense as the Secretary of Defense may specify by regulation.(3) Except as provided in subsection (d), the convening authority may act under this section only before entry of judgment.(4) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, a commissioned officer commanding for the time being, a successor in command, or any person exercising general court-martial jurisdiction may act under this section in place of the convening authority.(b)Reduction, Commutation, and Suspension of Sentences Generally.—(1) Except as provided in subsection (c) or (d), the convening authority may not reduce, commute, or suspend any of the following sentences:(A) A sentence of confinement, if the total period of confinement imposed for all offenses involved, running consecutively, is greater than six months.(B) A sentence of dismissal, dishonorable discharge, or bad-conduct discharge.(C) A sentence of death.(2) The convening authority may reduce, commute, or suspend any sentence not specified in paragraph (1).(c)Suspension of Certain Sentences Upon Recommendation of Military Judge.—(1) Upon recommendation of the military judge, as included in the Statement of Trial Results, together with an explanation of the facts supporting the recommendation, the convening authority may suspend—(A) a sentence of confinement, in whole or in part; or(B) a sentence of dismissal, dishonorable discharge, or bad-conduct discharge.(2) The convening authority may not, under paragraph (1)—(A) suspend a mandatory minimum sentence; or(B) suspend a sentence to an extent in excess of the suspension recommended by the military judge.(d)Reduction of Sentence for Substantial Assistance by Accused.—(1) Upon a recommendation by the trial counsel, if the accused, after sentencing and before entry of judgment, provides substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person, the convening authority may reduce, commute, or suspend a sentence, in whole or in part, including any mandatory minimum sentence.(2) Upon a recommendation by a trial counsel, designated in accordance with rules prescribed by the President, if the accused, after entry of judgment, provides substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person, a convening authority, designated under such regulations, may reduce, commute, or suspend a sentence, in whole or in part, including any mandatory minimum sentence.(3) In evaluating whether the accused has provided substantial assistance under this subsection, the convening authority may consider the presentence assistance of the accused.(e)Submissions by Accused and Victim.—(1) In accordance with rules prescribed by the President, in determining whether to act under this section, the convening authority shall consider matters submitted in writing by the accused or any victim of an offense. Such rules shall include—(A) procedures for notice of the opportunity to make such submissions;(B) the deadlines for such submissions; and(C) procedures for providing the accused and any victim of an offense with a copy of the recording of any open sessions of the court-martial and copies of, or access to, any admitted, unsealed exhibits.(2) The convening authority shall not consider under this section any submitted matters that relate to the character of a victim unless such matters were presented as evidence at trial and not excluded at trial.(f)Decision of Convening Authority.—(1) The decision of the convening authority under this section shall be forwarded to the military judge, with copies provided to the accused and to any victim of the offense.(2) If, under this section, the convening authority reduces, commutes, or suspends the sentence, the decision of the convening authority shall include a written explanation of the reasons for such action.(3) If, under subsection (d)(2), the convening authority reduces, commutes, or suspends the sentence, the decision of the convening authority shall be forwarded to the chief trial judge for appropriate modification of the entry of judgment, which shall be transmitted to the Judge Advocate General for appropriate action.(Added Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LIX, § 5322, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2924.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective on Jan. 1, 2019, as designated by the President, with implementing regulations and provisions relating to applicability to various situations, see section 5542 of Pub. L. 114–328 and Ex. Ord. 13825, set out as notes under section 801 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 2020–2026 · leading case: United States v. Aumont (en banc) (A.F.C.C.A. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Aumont (en banc) (A.F.C.C.A. 2020). · cites it 9× “) (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 (A.F.C.C.A. 2020). · cites it 8× “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 (A.F.C.C.A. 2021). · cites it 6× “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 (A.F.C.C.A. 2020). · cites it 4× “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 (A.F.C.C.A. 2026). · cites it 3× “See 10 U.S.C. § 860a(a)(1)(B); R.C.M. 1109(b).”
United States v. Lopez (A.F.C.C.A. 2021). · cites it 2× “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 (A.F.C.C.A. 2026). · cites it 2× “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 (A.F.C.C.A. 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 (A.F.C.C.A. 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 (A.F.C.C.A. 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 (A.F.C.C.A. 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 (A.F.C.C.A. 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.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— 10 U.S.C. § 860a(a)(1)(A) — 5 cases
United States v. Aumont (en banc) (A.F.C.C.A. 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 (A.F.C.C.A. 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 (A.F.C.C.A. 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 (N.M.C.C.A. 2023).
United States v. Hong (A.F.C.C.A. 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 (A.F.C.C.A. 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 (C.A.A.F. 2025).
— 10 U.S.C. § 860a(b)(1) — 1 case
United States v. Vongphachanh (A.F.C.C.A. 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 (A.F.C.C.A. 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) (A.F.C.C.A. 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 (A.F.C.C.A. 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 (A.F.C.C.A. 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 (A.F.C.C.A. 2021).
— 10 U.S.C. § 860a(b)(2) — 3 cases
United States v. Haynes (A.F.C.C.A. 2023).
United States v. Lopez (C.A.A.F. 2025).
United States v. Serjak (A.F.C.C.A. 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 (N.M.C.C.A. 2021).
— 10 U.S.C. § 860a(d) — 1 case
United States v. Lopez (A.F.C.C.A. 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 (A.F.C.C.A. 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) (A.F.C.C.A. 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 (A.F.C.C.A. 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) (A.F.C.C.A. 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 (A.F.C.C.A. 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 (A.F.C.C.A. 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.