- while the CCA clearly has the authority to disapprove part or all of the sentence and findings, nothing suggests that Congress intended to provide the CCAs with unfettered discretion to do so for any reason, for no reason, or on equitable grounds, which is a function of the command prerogative of the convening authority
- granting mercy for any reason or no reason is within the purview of the convening authority
- decisions not to prosecute or to grant requests for clemency are matters of command prerogative, and, as such, are for the convening authority, not the CCA
CAAF Opinion Digest · II.F.4 · Convening Authority
Clemency
3 digested opinions, 1999–2009 Terms
2009 (September Term)
2008 (Transition Term)
- the convening authority is presumed to know the difference between clemency materials and evidence adduced at trial
1999
- even though appellant’s offenses predated the effective date of Article 58b, thus not being subject to automatic forfeiture, the convening authority still had the power to remit or suspend any or all of the adjudged forfeitures as a matter of clemency
- convening authority remains the accused’s best hope for sentence relief
Source and status
This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.
Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · digest page IIF4 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).