When an accused is convicted of multiple offenses spanning different incidents, the court-martial panel will evaluate the cumulative punishment by looking at the totality of the misconduct to determine a single, appropriate sentence. The panel does not simply add up the maximum punishments for each individual offense. Instead, they are instructed by the military judge to consider all the proven offenses together and adjudge a sentence that is fair and just for the accused’s entire course of criminal conduct.
The prosecutor, during their sentencing argument, will emphasize the cumulative nature of the offenses. They will argue that the multiple incidents show a pattern of misconduct, a disrespect for authority, and a failure to be rehabilitated, thus warranting a more severe overall sentence, including a punitive discharge. They will frame the case as being about a “problem soldier” whose repeated offenses justify their removal from the service.
The military defense attorney will counter by addressing each offense separately. They will present mitigating evidence for each incident, trying to minimize its perceived severity. The attorney will also present a “whole person” case, highlighting the accused’s positive achievements, good military character, and any personal issues that may have contributed to the series of mistakes. They will ask the panel to consider each offense in context and to not “pile on,” arguing for a sentence that is rehabilitative rather than purely punitive, and one that does not unfairly punish the soldier multiple times over for a string of related or unrelated errors in judgment.