You may remember that CAAF dealt with MSRP in a number of cases. See e.g. United States v. Pena, 64 M.J. 259 (C.A.A.F. 2007)(not cruel and unusual punishment; not an increase in punishment based on the facts; failure to explain this collateral consequence doesn’t make plea improvident).
We do not take lightly the impact of the Mandatory Supervised Release program on Appellant . . . . Likewise, we do not disregard the possibility that the Mandatory Supervised Release program could be imposed in a manner that increases the punishment above the punishment adjudged by a court-martial. The burden, however, is on the party challenging the conditions to demonstrate that there has been an increase above the punishment of confinement imposed at trial.
Now we have Banks v. United States (Commandant, USDB).
James Banks served nearly twenty years in the Air Force before authorities learned that he had sexually abused his young daughter. When they did, the authorities initiated a court martial proceeding. The court ultimately found Mr. Banks guilty of various sex crimes, sentenced him to ten years in confinement, and he was dishonorably discharged. Following his court martial, Mr. Banks waived his right to appeal through the military court system and began to serve his sentence at Fort Leavenworth.
Before Mr. Banks completed his sentence, however, the military decided to parole him. Under its "mandatory supervised release program" (MSR), the military may impose various conditions on the parolee’s release.