U NITED S TATES A IR F ORCE
C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
________________________
No. ACM 40274 (f rev)
________________________
UNITED STATES
Appellee
v.
Ian M. WILSON
Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
________________________
Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
Upon Further Review
Decided 5 February 2024
________________________
Military Judge: Bryon T. Gleisner (Article 30a proceedings); Brett A.
Landry.
Sentence: Sentence adjudged 1 February 2022 by GCM convened at the
Oakland County Circuit Court in Pontiac, Michigan. Sentence entered
by military judge on 15 March 2022: Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture
of $1,190.00 pay per month for 2 months, reduction to E-1, and a repri-
mand.
For Appellant: Major Matthew L. Blyth, USAF.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Thomas J. Alford, USAF; Lieutenant
Colonel J. Peter Ferrell, USAF; Major Olivia B. Hoff, USAF; Mary Ellen
Payne, Esquire.
Before JOHNSON, ANNEXSTAD, and MASON, Appellate Military
Judges.
Judge MASON delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Judge
JOHNSON and Senior Judge ANNEXSTAD joined.
________________________
United States v. Wilson, No. ACM 40274 (f rev)
This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as
precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.
________________________
MASON, Judge:
A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, in
accordance with his pleas and pursuant to a plea agreement, of one charge and
one specification of desertion with an intent to remain away permanently ter-
minated by apprehension, in violation of Article 85, Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ),
10 U.S.C. § 885.1 The military judge sentenced Appellant to a
bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of $1,190.00 pay per month for two months,
reduction to the grade of E-1, and a reprimand. The convening authority took
no action on the findings or sentence.
Appellant originally raised three assignments of error: (1) whether this
court should order correction of the entry of judgment, which incorrectly stated
that the convening authority denied a deferment request when Appellant only
made a suspension request; (2) whether a missing convening order necessitates
remand; and (3) whether Appellant’s sentence is inappropriately severe.2
Additionally, the court’s review of the record indicated that the compact
disc (CD) purporting to contain the audio recordings of all open sessions of the
trial failed to capture the final session wherein the military judge apparently
reopened Appellant’s court-martial to announce his corrected sentence.
We remanded the case for correction of the entry of judgment (Issue 1),
insertion into the record of trial of the missing convening order (Issue 2), and
resolution of the issue of the missing audio recording of the last session of Ap-
pellant’s court-martial. We deferred addressing Appellant’s allegation that his
sentence is inappropriately severe until the record was returned to this court
for completion of our Article 66(d), UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. § 866(d), review. See
United States v. Wilson, No. ACM 40274,
2023 CCA LEXIS 343, at *6 (A.F. Ct.
Crim. App. 16 Aug. 2023) (unpub. op.). Issues 1 and 2 have been resolved as
directed. The issue of the recording was also addressed and resolved. The case
is returned to us for review. Appellant acknowledges that Issues 1 and 2 are
now moot but still asserts that his sentence is inappropriately severe.
1 Unless otherwise noted, all references in this opinion to the UCMJ and Rules for
Courts-Martial are to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.).
2 Appellant raises the third issue regarding the severity of his sentence pursuant to
United States v. Grostefon,
12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982).
2
United States v. Wilson, No. ACM 40274 (f rev)
I. BACKGROUND
Appellant was stationed at Nellis Air Force Base (AFB), Nevada. On 3 Jan-
uary 2021, Appellant knew that he was under investigation for an allegation
of sexual assault in Oakland County, Michigan. On 9 February 2021, Appel-
lant’s mother called him and told him that the State of Michigan issued a war-
rant for his arrest. After he finished talking to her, Appellant packed his bags
and transferred nearly $10,000.00 from his savings account to his checking ac-
count. He researched map information, “Canadian words,” and area infor-
mation. He got in his car and started driving north away from Nellis AFB,
Nevada, with the intent to cross the border into Canada. At some point during
the drive, Appellant formed the intent to remain away from his unit perma-
nently. During the military judge’s inquiry into the providency of Appellant’s
pleas, Appellant stated that he had driven too far to turn around and report to
his next shift on time. He decided that he would continue driving towards the
border and would not go back to his duty station. He proceeded until he was
about 100 yards away from the United States–Canada border in Washington
State, where he pulled into a neighborhood, parked, and contemplated whether
he should cross the border. United States Border Patrol agents approached
Appellant while he was parked and checked his identification. They learned of
his deserter status and of open arrest warrants issued by the United States Air
Force and the State of Michigan. The agents contacted the local police who
arrested Appellant and arranged for his extradition to Michigan.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Law
We review sentence appropriateness de novo. United States v. Lane,
64
M.J. 1, 2 n.8 (C.A.A.F. 2006). We may affirm only as much of the sentence as
we find correct in law and fact and determine should be approved based on the
entire record. Article 66(d), UCMJ. In determining whether a sentence should
be approved, our authority is “not legality alone, but legality limited by appro-
priateness.” United States v. Nerad,
69 M.J. 138, 141 (C.A.A.F. 2010). “We as-
sess sentence appropriateness by considering the particular appellant, the na-
ture and seriousness of the offenses, the appellant’s record of service, and all
matters contained in the record . . . .” United States v. Fields,
74 M.J. 619, 625
(A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2015) (citations omitted).
In conducting our review, we must also be sensitive to considerations of
uniformity and even-handedness. United States v. Sothen, 54. M.J. 294, 296
(C.A.A.F. 2001).
3
United States v. Wilson, No. ACM 40274 (f rev)
When considering the appropriateness of a sentence, we may consider that
a plea agreement to which Appellant agreed placed limits on the sentence that
could be imposed. See Fields,
74 M.J. at 626.
While we have significant discretion in determining whether a particular
sentence is appropriate, we are not authorized to engage in exercises of clem-
ency. Nerad,
69 M.J. at 148.
B. Analysis
Knowing that he was facing imminent arrest by civilian authorities as part
of a sexual assault investigation, Appellant transferred nearly $10,000.00 from
his savings account to his checking account. He researched map information,
“Canadian words” and area information, and fled his duty station. He was ap-
prehended by Border Patrol agents only about 100 yards from the United
States–Canada border.
Before trial, Appellant’s trial defense counsel successfully negotiated a plea
agreement that ensured Appellant would not be sentenced to any confinement
or to a dishonorable discharge. Yet, Appellant personally asserts that his sen-
tence is inappropriately severe.
We have conducted a thorough review of Appellant’s entire court-martial
record, including his record of service, and all matters submitted in extenua-
tion and mitigation, including the fact that following his apprehension, he was
confined awaiting trial for his civilian charge. We find that the nature and se-
riousness of the offense clearly support, at a minimum, the adjudged sentence.
Thus, the sentence is not inappropriately severe, and we affirm the sentence
as adjudged.
III. CONCLUSION
The findings and sentence as entered are correct in law and fact, and no
error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant occurred. Ar-
ticles 59(a) and 66(d), UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d). Accordingly, the find-
ings and sentence are AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT
CAROL K. JOYCE
Clerk of the Court
4
