United States v. NAVARRO

This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before KISOR, GANNON, and FLINTOFT Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES Appellee

v.

Theodore A. NAVARRO Equipment Operator Constructionman Third Class Petty Officer Appellant

No. 202500070

_________________________

Decided: 13 February 2026

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Kimberly J. Kelly

Sentence adjudged 19 November 2024 by a special court-martial tried at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to E-1 and forfeiture of one-half pay per month for two months.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Michael W. Wester, JAGC, USN

United States v. Navarro, NMCCA No. 202500070 Opinion of the Court

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

PER CURIAM: 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 Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. 1 However, we note the military judge failed to properly announce the forfei- ture in pay as required by Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1003(b)(2). 2 The rule also provides that if a sentence includes a reduction in grade, then the forfeiture should be based on the grade to which reduced. 3 Had the military judge complied with the rule and stated the forfeiture amount in a whole dollar amount at the reduced grade of E-1, it would have been $¹,008.00 per month for two months. 4 The Entry of Judgment (EOJ) apparently attempted to correct the error but incorrectly stated the forfeiture amount to be $1,000.00. As we have previously stated and repeated, “The failure of the military judge to account for forfeitures in a dollar amount is a clerical error with ‘no prejudicial impact on the accused’ and is easily remedied.” 5 Additionally, in this case, the military judge recommended suspension of the adjudged forfei- ture of pay and the convening authority approved the military judge’s recom- mendation, resulting in no forfeiture of pay being executed against Appellant.

United States v. Navarro, NMCCA No. 202500070 Opinion of the Court

Although we find no prejudice, Appellant is entitled to have court-martial records that correctly reflect the content of his proceeding. 6 In accordance with Rule for Courts-Martial 1111(c)(2), we modify the Entry of Judgment and di- rect that it be included in the record. The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

MARK K. JAMISON Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES NMCCA NO. 202500070

v. ENTRY OF Theodore A. NAVARRO JUDGMENT Equipment Operator Construc- tionman Third Class Petty Officer (E-4) As Modified on Appeal U.S. Navy 12 February 2026 Accused

On 19 November 2024, the Accused was tried at Naval Air Station Pen- sacola, Florida by special court-martial consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Military Judge Kimberly J. Kelly presided.

FINDINGS

The following are the Accused’s pleas and the Court’s finding to all offenses the convening authority referred to trial:

Charge : Violation of Article 121a, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §921a. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty.

Specification 1: on or about 1 December 2023 onboard Naval Station Rota, Spain knowingly and with intent to defraud, use a stolen debit card without the authorization of UT1 C.B., to obtain a USB headset of a value of about $97.99. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Withdrawn and dismissed without prejudice.

Specification 2: on or about 2 December 2023 onboard Naval Station Rota, Spain knowingly and with intent to defraud, use a stolen debit card without the

United States v. Navarro, NMCCA No. 202500070 Modified Entry of Judgment

authorization of UT1 C.B., to obtain an energy drink of a value of about $³.50. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Withdrawn and dismissed without prejudice.

Specification 3: on or about 2 December 2023 onboard Naval Station Rota, Spain knowingly and with intent to defraud, use a stolen debit card without the authorization of UT1 C.B., to obtain a laptop computer of a value of about $329.99. Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty.

Specification 4: on or about 2 December 2023 onboard Naval Station Rota, Spain knowingly and with intent to defraud, use a stolen debit card without the authorization of UT1 C.B., to obtain an energy drink of a value of about $3.05. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Withdrawn and dismissed without prejudice.

Specification 5: on or about 2 December 2023 onboard Naval Station Rota, Spain knowingly and with intent to defraud, use a stolen debit card without the authorization of UT1 C.B., to obtain an XBOX controller of a value of about $179.99. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Withdrawn and dismissed without prejudice.

Specification 6: on or about 2 December 2023 onboard Naval Station Rota, Spain knowingly and with intent to defraud, use a stolen debit card without the authorization of UT1 C.B., to obtain a fleece hoodie of a value of about $36.00. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Withdrawn and dismissed without prejudice.

United States v. Navarro, NMCCA No. 202500070 Modified Entry of Judgment

SENTENCE

On 19 November 2024, the military judge sentenced the Accused to the following: Reduction to pay grade E-1. Forfeiture of $1,008.00 pay per month for two months. In accordance with the plea agreement, the convening authority approved the military judge’s recommendation and suspended for a period of 12 months the adjudged forfeiture of pay.

FOR THE COURT:

MARK K. JAMISON Clerk of Court

Footnotes

[1] Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.

[2] Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.).

[3] R.C.M. 1003(b)(2).

[4] R. at 181 (The military judge announced the sentence, in part, as follows: “For- feiture of one-half pay per month for two months.”).

[5] United States v. Nelson, No. 202400119, 2025 CCA LEXIS 29 at *1-2 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 31, 2025); United States v. Jewett, No. 200900167, 2009 CCA LEXIS 688 at *2 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Sep. 24, 2009) (unpublished) (quoting United States v. Gilgallon, 1 C.M.A. 263, 2 C.M.R. 170, 172 (C.M.A. 1952)).

[6] United States v. Crumpley, 49 M.J. 538, 539 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1998).