Us V Collier Case Summary

I. Case Name and Citation:
a. U.S. v. Collier
i. United States (Appellee) ii. Sgt William H. Collier Jr. (Appellant)
b. U.S. v. Collier, 27 M.J. 806 (A.C.M.R. 1988)
II. Facts:
a. After an argument between Sgt. Collier and his Chief Warrant Officer three began to escalate the Warrant officer states he instructed Sgt. Collier to be “at ease” repeatedly. Sgt. Collier did not obey the order from his Chief Warrant Officer and therefore was brought in front of the courts.
b. Sgt. Collier was convicted of failure to repair (or failure to go to appointed place of duty), disobeying the lawful order of a warrant officer, as well as dereliction of duty. These three convictions were violations of Article 86 (he was absent without leave), Article 91 (willfully disobeyed the lawful order of a warrant officer), and Article 92 (failure to obey order or regulation) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Sgt. Collier was given a bad-conduct discharge and reduction to the rank of E-1.
c. Sgt. Collier appealed the decision claiming there were two errors in the judgment from the courts. First, that the judge allowed prior convictions to be used against him in this case, and second,

In the question of whether the Chief Warrant Officer abandoned his office if/and when he was showing unacceptable conduct toward a subordinate, the Chief Warrant Officer stated the argument was getting heated and loud and that is why he gave the order for Sgt Collier to be at ease. He maintains that he did not say anything offensive toward Sgt Collier; rather he kept repeating that the Sgt be at ease. Sgt. Collier states he was called an offensive term by the Chief Warrant Officer and was not given an order to be at ease. The courts stated that where the language used was not polite or proper it was not outside the norm of everyday duty. In order to be considered offensive and qualify as an abandonment of office it would have had to be outside the everyday norm of day to day activities or