U NITED S TATES AIR F ORCE
C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
________________________
No. ACM 39737 (f rev)
________________________
UNITED STATES
Appellee
v.
Austin J. MAURER
Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
________________________
Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
Upon Further Review
Decided 21 May 2021
________________________
Military Judge: Wesley A. Braun; Andrew R. Norton (remand).
Sentence: Sentence adjudged on 7 May 2019 by GCM convened at Moody
Air Force Base, Georgia. Sentence entered by military judge on 3 June
2019 and reentered on 18 February 2020: Bad-conduct discharge, con-
finement for 5 months, and reduction to E-1.
For Appellant: Major Meghan R. Glines-Barney, USAF.
Before MINK, LEWIS, and D. JOHNSON, Appellate Military Judges.
Judge D. JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the court, in which Senior
Judge LEWIS joined. Senior Judge MINK filed a separate opinion con-
curring in the result.
________________________
This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as
precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.
________________________
D. JOHNSON, Judge:
A general court-martial composed of a military judge sitting alone con-
victed Appellant, in accordance with his pleas and pursuant to a pretrial agree-
ment (PTA), of one specification of wrongful possession of cocaine with intent
United States v. Maurer, No. ACM 39737 (f rev)
to distribute; one specification of wrongful distribution of cocaine on divers oc-
casions; one specification of wrongful distribution of 3,4-Methylenedioxymeth-
amphetamine (MDMA) on divers occasions; one specification of wrongful use
of cocaine on divers occasions; and one specification of wrongful use of MDMA
on divers occasions, all in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 912a. 1,2
The military judge sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confine-
ment for five months, and reduction to the grade of E-1. The PTA had no effect
on the sentence the convening authority could approve. 3 The decision of the
convening authority is discussed in more detail below.
Although Appellant raised no issues on appeal, in light of United States v.
Finco, No. ACM S32603,
2020 CCA LEXIS 246, at *13–16 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App.
27 Jul. 2020) (unpub. op.), we consider whether the convening authority failed
to take action on the sentence as required by Executive Order 13,825, § 6(b),
83 Fed. Reg. 9889, 9890 (
8 Mar. 2018), and Article 60, UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. § 860
(Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 ed.) (2016 MCM)).
We find the convening authority’s decision memorandum contains error
and that remand to the Chief Trial Judge, Air Force Trial Judiciary, is appro-
priate.
I. BACKGROUND
Appellant entered the Air Force on 12 September 2017. At the time of the
offenses, he was assigned to Moody Air Force Base, Georgia.
In June 2018, Appellant and Airman First Class (A1C) SS were appre-
hended by agents from the Air Force Office of Special Investigations and local
law enforcement while distributing cocaine to A1C SP behind a store in Val-
dosta, Georgia. Subsequent investigation led to evidence of the charged of-
fenses.
1 References to the punitive articles of the UCMJ are to the Manual for Courts-Martial,
United States (2016 ed.). Unless otherwise specified, all other references to the UCMJ
and to the Rules for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) are to the Manual for Courts-Martial,
United States (2019 ed.).
2 The specifications for the wrongful use and distribution of cocaine, and the wrongful
use and distribution of MDMA were charged on divers occasions.
3 Pursuant to the PTA, the convening authority agreed to withdraw and dismiss a
charge and specification of conspiracy to wrongfully distribute cocaine in violation of
Article 81, UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. § 881.
2
United States v. Maurer, No. ACM 39737 (f rev)
II. POST-TRIAL PROCESSING
A. Additional Background
On the same day that Appellant’s court-martial adjourned, the military
judge signed a Statement of Trial Results. 4 On 16 May 2019, trial defense coun-
sel submitted a clemency request to the convening authority requesting defer-
ment of both Appellant’s reduction to the grade of E-1 and his automatic for-
feitures until entry of judgment. Appellant also requested reduction of his pe-
riod of confinement.
On 23 May 2019, the convening authority signed a Decision on Action mem-
orandum with the following statements in it:
1. I take no action on the findings of this case.
2. I take no action on the sentence of this case.
3. Prior to coming to this decision, I consulted with my Staff
Judge Advocate. Before declining to take action in this case,
I considered matters timely submitted by the accused under
R.C.M. 1106.
Additionally, the convening authority directed Appellant to take appellate
leave upon completion of his confinement. The memorandum did not state
whether the convening authority “approved” any portion of the adjudged sen-
tence. We address this matter in our analysis below.
On 3 June 2019, the military judge signed the entry of judgment (EoJ)
which entered into the record the sentence as adjudged. The EoJ also contained
a statement showing that the findings and the sentence “reflect all post-trial
actions by the convening authority.”
Appellant’s trial defense counsel was served a copy of the EoJ on 20 June
2019 and the convening authority’s decision memorandum on 24 June 2019.
No post-trial motions were filed alleging errors in the clemency process or that
the convening authority’s action was incomplete, irregular, or erroneous. See
R.C.M. 1104(b)(1)(E)–(F); R.C.M. 1104(b)(2)(B).
Appellant’s case was originally docketed with this court on 22 July 2019.
On 13 December 2019 this court ordered the Government to show cause why
this case should not be returned for correction of “the entry of judgment reflect-
4 The statement of trial results failed to include the command that convened the court-
martial as required by R.C.M. 1101(a)(3). Appellant has not claimed prejudice and we
find none. See United States v. Moody-Neukom, No. ACM S32594,
2019 CCA LEXIS
521, at *2–3 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 16 Dec. 2019) (per curiam) (unpub. op.).
3
United States v. Maurer, No. ACM 39737 (f rev)
ing the deferment information.” On 13 January 2020, the Government re-
sponded this “Honorable Court should correct the error in this case,” or should
this court “decline to exercise its authority under [Rule for Courts-Martial
(R.C.M.)] 1111(c), the Government recommends returning the Record of Trial
to the Chief Trial Judge for the purpose of modifying the entry of judgment.”
Appellant did not submit any matters on this issue.
On 24 January 2020, we remanded this case to The Judge Advocate Gen-
eral for correction of the EoJ. This case was docketed with our court on 20
February 2020 with a corrected EoJ dated 18 February 2020 stating that Ap-
pellant “requested deferment of the portion of the sentence reducing him to the
grade of E-1, as well as any automatic forfeitures, until the entry of judgment.”
Additionally, the convening authority “took no action on either the findings or
sentence in this case.” Appellant again submitted this case to the court without
raising any issues.
Following the second docketing of Appellant’s case, this court decided
Finco, in which we addressed for the first time whether the convening author-
ity’s decision memorandum in that case, which indicated he took no action on
the sentence, complied with Article 60, UCMJ, in effect on the date of the ear-
liest offense of which the appellant was found guilty. Unpub. op. at *13–16. We
examine the same issue in Appellant’s case.
B. Law
Proper completion of post-trial processing is a question of law this court
reviews de novo. United States v. Sheffield,
60 M.J. 591, 593 (A.F. Ct. Crim.
App. 2004) (citation omitted). Interpretation of a statute and a R.C.M. provi-
sion are also questions of law that we review de novo. United States v. Hunter,
65 M.J. 399, 401 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (citation omitted); United States v. Martinelli,
62 M.J. 52, 56 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (citation omitted).
Executive Order 13,825, § 6(b), requires that the version of Article 60,
UCMJ, “in effect on the date of the earliest offense of which the accused was
found guilty, shall apply to the convening authority . . . to the extent that Ar-
ticle 60: (1) requires action by the convening authority on the sentence.” See
2018 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States,
83 Fed.
Reg. 9889, 9890 (
8 Mar. 2018). The version of Article 60, UCMJ, in effect on
the date of the earliest convicted offense in this case, 1 April 2018, stated
“[a]ction on the sentence of a court-martial shall be taken by the convening
authority.”
10 U.S.C. § 860(c)(2)(A) (2016 MCM).
C. Analysis
We now consider what must be done, if anything, because the convening
authority’s decision memorandum did not explicitly state that he “approved”
4
United States v. Maurer, No. ACM 39737 (f rev)
each portion of the sentence contained in the EoJ. Appellant raises no error
and claims no prejudice on this front.
We adhere to the approach we used in prior cases where the convening au-
thority’s decision memoranda stated no action was taken on the sentence. See,
e.g., United States v. Cruspero, No. ACM S32595,
2020 CCA LEXIS 427, at *8–
13 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 24 Nov. 2020) (unpub. op.); United States v. Aumont,
No. ACM 39673,
2020 CCA LEXIS 416, at *29–37 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 20 Nov.
2020) (en banc) (Lewis, S.J., concurring in part and in the result) (unpub. op.),
rev. granted, ___ M.J. ___, No. 21-0126,
2021 CAAF LEXIS 389 (C.A.A.F.
4
Mar. 2021); Finco, unpub. op. at *13–16.
Our approach begins with determining whether Appellant waived or for-
feited the issue by not filing a post-trial motion within five days after receipt
of the convening authority’s decision memorandum to allege the action was
incomplete, irregular, or contained error. See R.C.M. 1104(b)(2)(B). In our view,
Appellant’s opportunity to challenge the decision memorandum before the mil-
itary judge and his failure to file such a motion warrants appropriate consid-
eration. As we did in Cruspero and for the same reasoning, we find that Appel-
lant’s failure to file a post-trial motion forfeited his right to object to the accu-
racy of the memorandum, absent plain error. Unpub. op. at *11–13.
To prevail under a plain error analysis, Appellant must show “(1) there was
an error; (2) [the error] was plain or obvious; and (3) the error materially prej-
udiced a substantial right.” See United States v. LeBlanc,
74 M.J. 650, 660 (A.F.
Ct. Crim. App. 2015) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Scalo,
60 M.J. 435,
436 (C.A.A.F. 2005)). We have applied the threshold of “some colorable showing
of possible prejudice” as the appropriate standard for an error impacting an
appellant’s request for clemency under the current post-trial processing sys-
tem. See, e.g., Cruspero, unpub op. at *12 (quoting LeBlanc, 74 M.J. at 660).
Applying the plain error test described above, just as in Cruspero and Finco
we find such a colorable showing to be “apparent” as we are “unsure” whether
the convening authority made a decision on a clemency request that could be
granted. Cruspero, unpub. op. at *13; Finco, unpub. op. at *16. Under these
circumstances, as in Cruspero and Finco, we determine that remand is the best
method to remedy this error. 5
5 We also note the convening authority did not provide reasons for his denial of Appel-
lant’s deferment requests. Our superior court, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Armed Forces, previously held convening authority denials of deferment requests
shall be in writing and are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Sloan,
35 M.J. 4, 6 (C.M.A. 1992) (citing R.C.M. 1101(c)(3)), overruled on other grounds by
5
United States v. Maurer, No. ACM 39737 (f rev)
III. CONCLUSION
The record is REMANDED to the Chief Trial Judge, Air Force Trial Judi-
ciary, to resolve a substantial issue with the convening authority’s decision on
action memorandum as no action was taken on Appellant’s adjudged sentence
as required by law.
Our remand returns jurisdiction over the case to a detailed military judge
and dismisses this appellate proceeding consistent with Rule 29(b)(2) of the
Joint Rules for Appellate Procedure for Courts of Criminal Appeals. JT. CT.
CRIM. APP. R. 29(b)(2). A detailed military judge may:
(1) Correct the Statement of Trial Results;
(2) Return the record of trial to the convening authority or his successor to
take action on the sentence;
(3) Conduct one or more Article 66(f)(3), UCMJ (2019 MCM), proceedings
using the procedural rules for post-trial Article 39(a), UCMJ, sessions;
and/or
(4) Correct or modify the entry of judgment.
Thereafter, the record of trial will be returned to the court for completion
of appellate review under Article 66, UCMJ.
MINK, Senior Judge (concurring in the result):
I agree with the conclusion of the majority with respect to remanding this
case to the Chief Trial Judge, Air Force Trial Judiciary, to resolve a substantial
issue with the convening authority’s decision memorandum as no action was
taken on Appellant’s adjudged sentence as required by law. However, I find
the convening authority’s decision to “take no action on the sentence” to be a
“fundamental misstep in military justice procedure” as articulated by Chief
Judge J. Johnson in his separate opinion, which I joined, in United States v.
Aumont, No. ACM 39673,
2020 CCA LEXIS 416, at *92–105 (A.F. Ct. Crim.
United States v. Dinger,
77 M.J. 447, 453 (C.A.A.F. 2018). Our court recently granted
relief for a Sloan error in United States v. Frantz, No. ACM 39657,
2020 CCA LEXIS
404, at *42 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 10 Nov. 2020) (unpub. op.). See Article 57(b), UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. § 857(b); R.C.M. 1103. This court recently decided United States v. Samudio,
where we held the convening authority erred by failing to put his decision on appel-
lant’s deferment request in writing but the error did not materially prejudice appel-
lant’s substantial rights. No. ACM S32620,
2021 CCA LEXIS 146 at *6–11 (A.F. Ct.
Crim. App.
31 Mar. 2021) (unpub. op.). We defer further consideration on this issue
until this case is returned for completion of appellate review.
6
United States v. Maurer, No. ACM 39737 (f rev)
App. 20 Nov. 2020) (en banc) (J. Johnson, C.J., concurring in part and dissent-
ing in part) (unpub. op.), rev. granted, ___ M.J. ___, No. 21-0126,
2021 CAAF
LEXIS 389 (C.A.A.F.
4 Mar. 2021). As such, I do not agree with the majority in
conducting a plain error analysis. The convening authority’s action must be
“clear and unambiguous,” and in this case it is not. See United States v. Politte,
63 M.J. 24, 26 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (citing United States v. Loft,
10 M.J. 262, 268
(C.M.A. 1981)). I further disagree with the majority’s decision to test for prej-
udice.
Accordingly, I would find error and remand this case regardless of whether
the Appellant was prejudiced.
FOR THE COURT
CAROL K. JOYCE
Clerk of the Court
7
