U NITED S TATES AIR F ORCE
C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
________________________
No. ACM 39170
________________________
UNITED STATES
Appellee
v.
Gage J. KENDALL
Airman Basic (E-1), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
________________________
Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
Decided 26 September 2017
________________________
Military Judge: Vance H. Spath.
Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 12 months,
and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. Sentence adjudged 20 Septem-
ber 2016 by GCM convened at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson,
Alaska.
For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel R. Davis Younts, USAF; Major Mark
C. Bruegger, USAF.
For Appellee: Major Mary Ellen Payne, USAF; Major Meredith L. Steer,
USAF.
Before HARDING, SPERANZA, and HUYGEN, Appellate Military
Judges.
________________________
This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as
precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.
________________________
PER CURIAM:
The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no er-
ror materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles
United States v. Kendall, No. ACM 39170
59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c).
Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED. *
FOR THE COURT
KURT J. BRUBAKER
Clerk of the Court
*The adjudged sentence was confinement for 14 months, a bad-conduct discharge, and
forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The staff judge advocate’s recommendation (SJAR)
recommended, in accordance with the pretrial agreement (PTA), approving only “so
much of the sentence as calls for 12 months confinement, bad conduct discharge, and
forfeiture of all pay and allowances.” The addendum to the SJAR contained a sentence
that the earlier recommendation remained unchanged, immediately followed by a rec-
ommendation that the convening authority approve the findings and sentence “as ad-
judged.” The SJAR was correct, and the convening authority approved the sentence as
recommended by the SJAR and in accordance with the PTA to the benefit of Appellant.
As a result, we are not requiring a correction of the addendum.
2
