U NITED S TATES A IR F ORCE
C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
UNITED STATES ) No. ACM 40261
Appellee )
)
v. )
) ORDER
Jason D. ORT )
First Lieutenant (O-2) )
U.S. Air Force )
Appellant ) Panel 1
On 25 January 2022, Appellant was tried by a general court-martial at
Joint Base Andrews-Naval Air Facility Washington, Maryland. He was con-
victed, consistent with his pleas, of five specifications of knowingly making re-
cordings of the private areas of individuals without their consent and under
circumstances in which they had a reasonable expectation of privacy, in viola-
tion of Article 120c, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 920c;
and one specification of attempting to do the same to another individual, in
violation of Article 80, UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. § 980.1
During the preliminary hearing, Preliminary Hearing Officer (PHO) Ex-
hibit 23 was provided to and reviewed by the PHO. On page 5 of the prelimi-
nary hearing report, the PHO described the exhibit as a compact disc, 30 sec-
onds in length, undated. The description for this exhibit was, “11-05-49_2m.”
The preliminary hearing report describes the “Location of Original” for this
exhibit as “316 Wing/JA.” The PHO sealed PHO Exhibits 20–25.
Upon this court’s review of the record, we noted an issue with PHO Exhibit
23 in the original record of trial filed with the court. Specifically, the disc is
blank. Thus, it appears that PHO Exhibit 23, and by extension the preliminary
hearing report as a whole, has not been properly attached to the record. See
Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1112(f)(1)(A).2
1 All references in this order to the UCMJ and Rules for Courts-Martial are to the
Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.).
2 Specifically, the preliminary hearing report shall be attached to the record of trial if
not used as a trial exhibit. The court notes that neither the preliminary hearing report
nor PHO Exhibit 23 appear to have been used as an exhibit at trial.
United States v. Ort, No. ACM 40261
On 2 August 2022, this court ordered the Government to show good cause
as to “why this court should not remand this record for completion and correc-
tion.” On 19 August 2022, the Government responded to the court’s order, rec-
ommending that the case “be returned to the military judge to correct the rec-
ord in accordance with R.C.M. 1112(d).”
Accordingly, it is by the court on this 31st day of August, 2022,
ORDERED:
The record of trial in Appellant’s case is returned to the Chief Trial Judge,
Air Force Trial Judiciary, for correction under R.C.M. 1112(d) to account for
the correct version of sealed PHO Exhibit 23, and any other portion of the rec-
ord that is determined to be missing or defective hereafter, after consultation
with the parties. See Article 66(g), UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. § 866(g); R.C.M.
1112(d)(2)–(3). Thereafter, the record of trial will be returned to this court for
completion of its appellate review under Article 66(d), UCMJ,
10 U.S.C.
§ 866(d).
The record of trial will be returned to the court not later than 30 Septem-
ber 2022. If the record cannot be returned to the court by that date, the Gov-
ernment will inform the court in writing not later than 28 September 2022 of
the status of the Government’s compliance with this order.
FOR THE COURT
ANTHONY F. ROCK, Maj, USAF
Deputy Clerk of the Court
2
