UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM 40072

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Joshua P. MOCK

Captain (O-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 1 September 2022

________________________

Military Judge: Thomas J. Alford (pretrial motion);

1 Brett A. Landry 

(pretrial); Jill M. Thomas.

Sentence: Sentence adjudged 1 March 2021 by GCM convened at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. Sentence entered by military judge 

on 24 March 2021: dismissal and confinement for six months. 

For Appellant: Major Matthew L. Blyth, USAF.

For Appellee: Major Cortland T. Bobczynski, USAF; Major John P. 

Patera, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire.

Before KEY, ANNEXSTAD and MEGINLEY, Appellate Military Judges.

Judge MEGINLEY delivered the opinion of the court, in which Senior

Judge KEY and Judge ANNEXSTAD joined.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.

________________________

1 Pursuant to Article 30a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 830a.
United States v. Mock, No. ACM 40072

2

MEGINLEY, Judge:

A general court-martial comprised of a military judge convicted Appellant, 

in accordance with his pleas and pursuant to a plea agreement, of one specification of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman for knowingly possessing visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, in 

violation of Article 133, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 933, and one specification of wrongful possession of child pornography, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, 10 

U.S.C. § 934.

2,3 The court-martial sentenced Appellant to a dismissal and confinement for six months.The convening authority took no action on the findings 

and approved the sentence,

4 and, with the exception of the findings entered for 

the Specification of Charge I, the military judge entered the findings and sentence as adjudged. 

Appellant personally raises two issues pursuant to United States v. 

Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982): (1) whether his sentence to a dismissal 

is inappropriately severe, and (2) whether the convening authority abused his 

discretion in denying Appellant’s request to defer forfeitures.

5 We have carefully considered the second issue and find it does not warrant discussion or 

relief. See United States v. Matias, 25 M.J. 356, 361 (C.M.A. 1987). Additionally, we consider another issue raised by Appellant:

6

(3) the entry of judgment 

2 Appellant’s conviction for wrongful possession of child pornography under Article 134, 

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 934, occurred before and after 1 January 2019. As such, the punitive article found in the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 ed.) (2016 

MCM) will apply to this charge and specification. Appellant’s conviction for conduct 

unbecoming an officer and gentleman under Article 133, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 933, occurred after 1 January 2019. Therefore, the punitive article in the Manual for CourtsMartial, United States (2019 ed.) (2019 MCM) will apply to that charge and specification. All charges and specifications were referred to trial by court-martial after 1 January 2019; therefore, all other references to the UCMJ and Rules for Courts-Martial 

(R.C.M.) are to the 2019 MCM.

3 In accordance with the plea agreement and upon acceptance of Appellant’s guilty 

plea, the convening authority withdrew and dismissed with prejudice a specification of 

wrongful viewing of child pornography and a specification of wrongful receipt of child 

pornography, both in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. 

4 The convening authority took “no action” on findings, but in applying “the version of 

Article 60, UCMJ, in effect on the date of the earliest offense of which the accused was 

found guilty,” 10 U.S.C. § 860 (2016 MCM), the convening authority “[took] the following action on the sentence in this case: the sentence is approved.” 

5 Upon Appellant’s request, the convening authority waived all automatic forfeitures 

for the benefit of Appellant’s wife and children.

6 Appellant raised this third issue, also pursuant to Grostefon, in a footnote within his 

brief filed with this court.
United States v. Mock, No. ACM 40072

3

(EoJ) contains an error as to the timeframe in the Specification of Charge I and 

therefore this court should remand Appellant’s case for a corrected EoJ. We 

agree that the EoJ contains error because it does not accurately state the adjudged findings for this conviction; however, in the exercise of our authority 

under Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1111(c)(2), we correct the error in our 

decree. Following this court’s Article 66(d)(1), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(d)(1), 

mandate to affirm only so much of the findings and the sentence as the court

finds, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved, we correct the error 

in the decree and affirm the findings and sentence.

I. BACKGROUND

Appellant entered active duty service in February 2014 and was stationed 

at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. At the time of his charged offenses, 

Appellant served as a Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) pilot. As part of his plea

agreement, Appellant agreed to a stipulation of fact. The information provided 

in the stipulation of fact and in Appellant’s providence inquiry form the basis 

for the following factual background.

On 25 May 2019, Yahoo! Inc., an electronic communications services provider, flagged an account with an email address used by Appellant, for uploading 240 files of suspected child pornography. Yahoo! Inc. submitted a 

“CyberTip” to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 

(NCMEC), who in turn, notified the Air Force Office of Special Investigations 

(AFOSI). 

Once AFOSI confirmed the account belonged to Appellant, agents coordinated with local detectives to obtain a search warrant for Appellant’s off-base 

residence on 14 August 2019. Multiple electronic devices were seized during 

the search. On that same day, Appellant was interviewed by AFOSI agents, 

where he acknowledged that he had “seen some illegal stuff” and that “a lot of 

them are younger girls.” When confronted by agents about the images, Appellant stated, “some of them that I saw that I knew were illegal, I don’t want 

anything to do with that, right? Some of them morally questionable, absolutely, 

right?” When asked to explain what he meant by morally questionable, Appellant responded, “It was wrong. A lot of them were – a lot of them were young 

girls.” Appellant stipulated “that some of the people in the images might be 10 

or 12, but it was possible that others were younger.”
United States v. Mock, No. ACM 40072

4

Appellant possessed a total of 55 images of child pornography—25 child 

pornography images were found in his Yahoo! email account and 30 child pornography images were found on an external hard drive.

7 Appellant also possessed 11 “anime” images of what appeared to be minors engaging in sexually 

explicit conduct, which formed the basis for Appellant’s conviction for conduct 

unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. With respect to the anime images, 

during his providence inquiry, Appellant told the military judge,

[T]he images that support this Charge and Specification are 

clear depictions of minors. They -- some of them depict violence, 

sexual violence. Some of them are just extremely, extremely 

graphic. They’re not simply hand-drawn cartoons. They’re 

meant to be realistic in appearance. I -- there is no question in 

my mind that these are -- these are something that I’m personally ashamed of, and there is no question that I -- that anybody 

looking at them would be disturbed or should be disturbed. 

NCMEC reported that 51 images possessed by Appellant were connected to 

known victims of child pornography. Appellant stipulated 28 of those images 

were considered child pornography. 

 Pursuant to his plea agreement, Appellant agreed to a maximum confinement of 24 months for the wrongful possession of child pornography specification, and a maximum confinement of 90 days for the conduct unbecoming specification. All terms of confinement were to be served concurrently. However, as 

Appellant notes, the plea agreement did not contain the common language, 

“This plea agreement places no further limitations on the sentence the military 

judge may adjudge,” or words to that effect. Nonetheless, Appellant acknowledges that the military judge’s plea agreement inquiry “made clear that her [ ] 

sentence fell within all parties’ understanding of the agreement.” In other 

words—aside from confinement—the plea agreement did not limit any form of 

authorized punishment that the military judge was empowered to adjudge, to 

include a dismissal. 

7 The child pornography found in Appellant’s email account spanned a timeframe from 

8 January 2019 to 19 May 2019. Appellant notes, and the court agrees, that several of 

the 55 images are duplicates of each other. However, in his brief, Appellant specifically

stated that he “does not claim these duplications undermine the providence of his pleas 

in any way.” We concur. The court also notes there were four sets of duplicates within 

the 51 files identified.
United States v. Mock, No. ACM 40072

5

II. DISCUSSION

A. Sentence Appropriateness

1. Additional Background

Appellant argues his dismissal is “inappropriately severe in light of: (1) his 

tremendous contributions to the Air Force; (2) the role of his combat experience 

in precipitating the offenses; and (3) his demonstrated rehabilitative potential.”

As part of his pre-sentencing matters, Appellant presented 9 character letters, 11 certificates, 7 awards and citations, 4 letters of appreciation, and 5

miscellaneous documents and photographs; 6 witnesses also testified on his 

behalf. Finally, Appellant presented the military judge an oral unsworn statement and a lengthy written unsworn statement. 

In his written unsworn statement, Appellant described his duties as an

RPA pilot and provided several instances where his duties and the act of taking 

lives had a “profound impact” on him. Appellant notes in his brief that, “[i]n 

response to personal stressors, in and out of the military, he found himself engaging in the unhealthy outlet of building a library of pornography, which included child pornography.” After Appellant’s crimes were discovered, Appellant sought mental health services and religious guidance. 

Appellant argues his dismissal will end “his ability to receive any type of 

treatment for what he endured in the Air Force” and that “to the degree he is 

broken, the Air Force is a large contributor.” Finally, Appellant states, “The 

dismissal abandons him in his time of need and bars him from crucial services 

available for those who struggle with the mental scars of combat.” 

2. Law and Analysis

We review issues of sentence appropriateness de novo. United States v. 

Lane, 64 M.J. 1, 2 (C.A.A.F. 2006). Our authority to determine sentence appropriateness, “which reflects the unique history and attributes of the military 

justice system, includes but is not limited to considerations of uniformity and 

evenhandedness of sentencing decisions.” United States v. Sothen, 54 M.J. 294, 

296 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (citations omitted). We may affirm only as much of the 

sentence as we find correct in law and fact and determine should be approved 

on the basis of the entire record. Article 66(d)(1), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(d)(1).

“We assess sentence appropriateness by considering the particular appellant, 

the nature and seriousness of the offense[s], the appellant’s record of service, 

and all matters contained in the record of trial.” United States v. Anderson, 67 

M.J. 703, 705 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2009) (per curiam) (citations omitted). Alt-
United States v. Mock, No. ACM 40072

6

hough we have great discretion to determine whether a sentence is appropriate, we have no power to grant mercy. United States v. Nerad, 69 M.J. 138, 146 

(C.A.A.F. 2010) (citation omitted).

The court acknowledges that prior to the discovery of Appellant’s crimes, it 

appears as though Appellant had an above-average career. We also recognize 

the stressors and pressure that come with his duties as an RPA pilot. However, 

we also consider the extent to which Appellant’s child pornography possession 

or his behavior fell below the standard expected of Air Force officers. As the 

Government stated in its brief, and we fully agree, “the demands of being an 

RPA pilot are hardly an excuse for participating in the exploitation of children.” Some of the images depict the sexual assault of children, and are exceptionally graphic and disturbing, an admission made by Appellant himself with 

respect to the anime. Turning to the images of actual persons, by storing these 

files with an online service provider, Appellant made these files available—at 

the very least—to that service provider, thereby creating a risk that the images 

could be further distributed. Such proliferation could only serve to exacerbate 

the exploitation of any minor, or otherwise non-consenting individual, featured 

in those files.

Additionally, Appellant cited no legal precedent or authority to support his 

contention that his sentence to a dismissal is inappropriately severe. Appellant’s argument and analysis on appeal is similar to his unsworn statements

and the matters he provided during sentencing and clemency. To the extent

Appellant’s recitation of these prior arguments amounts to another attempt at 

clemency, such matters are outside the authorized function of this court. See 

Nerad, 69 M.J. at 146. Furthermore, Appellant faced up to 20 years in confinement, had a plea agreement cap of confinement for 2 years, and yet only received 6 months’ confinement for his crimes. As such, we are confident the military judge gave Appellant’s mitigation and extenuation matters the due consideration they warranted. And “[w]hile these matters are appropriate considerations during clemency, they do not show [Appellant]’s sentence is inappropriately severe.” United States v. Aguilar, 70 M.J. 563, 567 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 

2011). Having considered Appellant, the nature and seriousness of his convicted offenses, and all matters contained in the record of trial, to include all 

matters Appellant submitted in his case in extenuation, mitigation, and clemency, we conclude the approved sentence, including a dismissal, is not inappropriately severe. 

B. Entry of Judgment 

Appellant notes, and we concur, that the EoJ states an incorrect timeframe

for the Specification of Charge I (conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman 

for knowingly possessing visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct). As referred, the specification states Appellant committed this 
United States v. Mock, No. ACM 40072

7

offense “between on or about 8 January 2019 and on or about 19 May 2019.”

Appellant pleaded and was found guilty of the specification as charged. The 

Statement of Trial Results—attached to the EoJ—reflects the timeframe as 

charged. However, the EoJ states Appellant’s conduct occurred during the 

timeframe “between on or about 19 May 2019,” which is incomplete and thus 

incorrect.

An accurate summary of the offense would reflect a timeframe of “between 

on or about 8 January 2019 and on or about 19 May 2019” in accordance with 

the findings of guilty announced to the Specification of Charge I. Appellant 

asks us to remand his case to correct this error. Rather than grant the relief 

requested by Appellant, we employ our authority under R.C.M. 1111(c)(2) and 

modify the EoJ.

III. CONCLUSION

The findings and sentence as entered by the military judge and modified 

by this opinion are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial 

to the substantial rights of Appellant occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(d), UCMJ, 

10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d). The entry of judgment for the finding of guilty to 

Charge I and its Specification is modified by excepting “on or about 19 May 

2019,” and substituting therefor, “on or about 8 January 2019 and on or about 

19 May 2019.” Accordingly, the findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE

Clerk of the Court