UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES ) No. ACM 40142

Appellee )

)

v. )

) ORDER

Cody R. SAYERS )

Technical Sergeant (E-6) )

U.S. Air Force )

Appellant ) Special Panel

On 4 May 2021, a military judge sitting as a general court-martial at Offutt 

Air Force Base (AFB), Nebraska, convicted Appellant, in accordance with his 

pleas and pursuant to a pretrial agreement (PTA), of one specification of fraudulent enlistment, in violation of Article 83, Uniform Code of Military Justice 

(UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 883, and two specifications of sexual abuse of a child, in 

violation of Article 120b, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 920b.*

The PTA provided that the approved sentence would not exceed 54 months 

of confinement. The PTA also provided that any forfeitures would be “deferred 

or waived to maximize the financial benefit to [Appellant’s] dependent spouse 

and four children, to the extent allowed by law.”

After accepting Appellant’s pleas of guilty, the military judge sentenced 

Appellant to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for three years, forfeiture

of all pay and allowances, reduction to the grade of E-1, and a reprimand. 

Also on 4 May 2021, the military judge executed the statement of trial results, which included the following language pertinent to this order after the 

section for Plea Agreement/PTA Limitations on Punishment:

[F]orfeitures, whether adjudged or automatic, will be deferred or 

waived to maximize the financial benefit to [Appellant’s] dependent spouse and four children, to the extent allowed by law.

On 20 May 2021, the convening authority issued his decision on action, in 

which he approved the adjudged sentence and included the following statement: “All of the adjudged and automatic forfeitures are hereby deferred from 

* Reference in this order to the punitive article of fraudulent enlistment is to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2005 ed.). References to other punitive articles 

of the UCMJ are to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 ed.).
United States v. Sayers, No. ACM 40142

2

14 days from the date the sentence was adjudged until the date the miliary 

judge signs the entry of judgment.” The convening authority also wrote, 

All of the automatic forfeitures are waived for a period of 6 

months, or release from confinement, or expiration of term of 

service, whichever is sooner, with the waiver commencing on the 

date the military judge signs the entry of judgment. The total 

pay and allowances is directed to be paid to [AS], spouse of [Appellant], for the benefit of herself and [Appellant’s] dependent 

children. 

A corrected copy of the entry of judgment, dated 2 June 2021, reads: “Forfeitures of Pay and/or Allowances: Forfeit all pay and allowances N/A.” The 

waiver of automatic forfeitures section reads, 

All of the automatic forfeitures are waived for a period of 6 

months, or release from confinement, or expiration of term of 

service, whichever is sooner, with the waiver commencing on the 

date the military judge signs the entry of judgment. The total 

pay and allowances is directed to be paid to [AS], spouse of [Appellant], for the benefit of herself and [Appellant’s] dependent 

children.

The corrected entry of judgment lists three attachments, one of which purports 

to be a seven-page document: “Email Chain re Correcting Action/EOJ dated 25 

May–2 June 2021.” 

The record of trial docketed with this court did not contain the seven-page 

attachment to the corrected entry of judgment. Accordingly, on 25 August 

2022, this court ordered the Government to show cause “why this court should 

not remand this record for completion and correction of the record.”

On 8 September 2022, the Government provided its answer to the court’s 

25 August 2022 order. The Government claimed, inter alia:

[T]he omission of the third attachment to the 2 June 2022 corrected Entry of Judgment, a seven-page document, “Email 

Chain re Correcting Action/EOJ dated 25 May – 2 June 2021,”

is an insubstantial error that can be remedied without remand.

On 8 September 2022, the Government also moved to attach:

an email thread provided by the Government between the military judge, trial counsel, and trial defense counsel discussing 

correction of the terms of the EOJ to properly memorialize the 

Convening Authority’s agreement to waive forfeitures to the extent allowed by law for the benefit of Appellant’s spouse and dependent children.
United States v. Sayers, No. ACM 40142

3

The Government also claimed that “the authenticity this attachment is readily 

apparent and an affidavit or unsworn declaration as to its authenticity is therefore not needed.” Appellant did not file an opposition the motion. On 26 September 2022, we granted the Government’s motion to attach.

After considering the e-mail chain and the Government’s answer to this 

court’s 25 August 2022 order, the court finds that the attachment does not clarify matters. Specifically, the attachment itself is ambiguous insofar as it does 

not clearly articulate the convening authority’s intended decision on action. As 

part of the email traffic contained within the attachment, an assistant staff 

judge advocate from the Offutt AFB legal office stated the following:

The Parties have already discussed the error and are in agreement that the action and/or Entry of Judgment should be corrected in order to reflect a suspension or disapproval of the adjudged total forfeitures in order to ensure the member’s dependents receive the maximum financial benefit under the law. The 

Government has likewise coordinated with the [General CourtMartial Convening Authority (GCMCA)] and confirmed this was 

the GCMCA’s intent when entering into the [pretrial agreement].

(Emphasis added).

It is not clear, even to the extent that the court considers the Government’s 

attachment, whether the convening authority intended to suspend or disapprove of any adjudged forfeitures. The convening authority’s decision on action 

reflects his approval of the adjudged sentence, which included total forfeitures. 

The corrected EOJ, however, notes “N/A” with respect to the forfeitures. The 

parties apparently determined the forfeitures should be either suspended or 

disapproved, but the record does not indicate whether the convening authority 

took any action with respect to that determination and, if he did take action, 

what that action was.

Accordingly, it is by the court on this 27th day of September, 2022,

ORDERED:

The record of trial is REMANDED to the Chief Trial Judge, Air Force Trial 

Judiciary, to correct the record under Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1112(d)

to resolve a substantial issue with the post-trial processing, insofar as the convening authority’s intent is not clear and any action by the convening authority 

on the adjudged forfeitures is not reflected in the entry of judgment or the convening authority’s decision on action memorandum.

The court’s remand returns jurisdiction to a detailed military judge and 

dismisses this appellate proceeding. See Jt. Ct. Crim. App. R. 29(b)(2). A detailed military judge may:
United States v. Sayers, No. ACM 40142

4

(1) Return the record of trial to the convening authority for new post-trial 

processing consistent with this order, specifically articulating the decision of 

the convening authority with respect to adjudged forfeitures;

(2) Conduct one or more Article 66(f)(3), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(f)(3), proceedings using the procedural rules for post-trial Article 39(a), UCMJ, 10 

U.S.C. § 839(a), sessions; and

(3) Correct or modify the entry of judgment.

Thereafter, the record of trial will be returned to this court not later than 

31 October 2022 for completion of its appellate review under Article 66(d), 

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(d). If the record cannot be returned to the court by that 

date, the Government will inform the court in writing not later than 27 October 2022 of the status of the Government’s compliance with this order. 

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE

Clerk of the Court