UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Airman First Class SEANDALE J. CHAMBLEE

United States Air Force

ACM 38453

17 June 2014

Sentence adjudged 14 August 2013 by G CM convened at McConnell
Air Force Base, Kansas . Military Judge: Natalie D. Richardson (sitting alone).

Approved S entence: Bad

- conduct discharge, confinement for 22 months

, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to E

- 1

.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Colonel Randall G. Snow

.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire.

Before

MARKSTEINER, MITCHELL, and WEBER Appellate Military Judges

OPINION OF THE COURT

This opinion is subject to editorial correction before final release

.

MITCHELL, Judge :

A general court

- martial composed of a military judge convicted the appellant

, pursuant to his pleas

, of desertion, false official statement, wrongful use of marijuan a , and aggravated sexual assault in violation of Articles 85, 107, 112a, and 120, UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. § § 885, 907, 912a

, 920

. The adjudged and approved sentence consist ed of a
bad

- conduct discharge, confinement for 22 months, total forfeiture of all pay and
allowances , and reduction to E

- 1

.ACM 38453 2 Background

By the time of his court

- martial, the appellant was a 20

- year

- old Airman who had
been in the Air Force for slightly more than 2 years

. Around February 2011, when t he appellant was a senior in high school, he met Ms. SA through Facebook. The y met for the first time in person in June 2011 and began a dating relationship . The appellant
enlisted in the Air Force and entered active du ty on 12 July 201 1 . Throughout basic training a nd technical school training, the appellant kept in contact with Ms. SA. In June 2012, the appellant took leave and returned home. While home, he and Ms. SA
decided to celebrate their one

- year anniversary by engaging in sexual intercourse.
Ms. SA did not turn 16 until the following month, July 2012. Later that summer, their relationship ended when the appellant became involved with another female . Ms. SA did
not report the event to law enforcement.

The appellan t was granted leave from 7

– 16 February 2013. He again returned home and met up with a friend, Mr. MC. Mr. MC was a college student and lived in the dorms at the nearby college. The appellant smoked marijuana with Mr. MC on several
occasions. By the time his leave ended, the appellant decid ed not to return to
McConnell A ir F orce B ase , K ansas , and instead planned to move in with Mr. MC and enroll in college. He moved his belongings out of his mother’s apartment and moved in
with Mr. MC.

When t he appellant did not return for his next duty day, his supervisor called his cellphone and spoke to him. The appellant falsely told his supervisor that he was currently driving back to base. While he remained away, the appellant posted a video on Facebook in which he is asking Mr. MC about a “ blunt. ” The appellant’s page was public so members of his squadron

, his commander

, and others were able to see that post and other status updates that described his partying instead of being at work. The appellant did not voluntarily return to military control. On 25 February 2013, Air Force law enforcement agents apprehended the appellant. He was subsequently placed in pretrial confinement. In t he course of investigating the appellant’s desertion and his connections to his home community, the law enforcement agents interviewed Ms. SA and learned about their sexual relationship while she was under the age of consent

.

The appellant pled guilty to all charges and specifications

— including the Article 120, UCMJ

, charge with Ms. SA as the victim

— pursuant to a p re trial agreement. The military judge properly ensured that the appellant was advised of the sex offender registration requirements. See Un ited States v. Riley , 72 M.J. 115 (C.A.A.F. 2013)

.

The appellant submitted statements from Ms. SA and her father during the sentencing proceeding. Those statements explained that Ms. SA had saved every letter that the appellant sent her during his train ing. Ms. SA wrote about their relationship

, stating that she loved the appellant and was praying that he would be able to overcomeACM 38453 3 this obstacle. She stated that she still had a good relationship with the appellant’s mother. Her father, a reverend, wrot e that in the beginning he closely supervised the relationship between the appellant and his daughter, an honor student. The appellant had respected
his rules

, and he allowed them to date

— which included going to the movies together. H e

wrote : “I still t hink [the appellant] is a good and fair young man. I just think that he
made a left turn instead of turning right.”

The s taff j udge a dvocate obtained a “victim impact letter” from Ms. SA and
included it as an attachment to the staff judge advocate’s recommendation to the convening authority. Ms. SA wrote that she understood “the law is the law” but asked the convening authority to grant some clemency. She described the appellant as a good person who made mistakes and had learned his lesson. She des cribed the impact thusly : “I believe that the most stressful and over

- whelming impact that [the appe l lant’s] ‘crime’ had on my life was having to answer questions and talk to attorneys often, and knowing
that [he] was confined. I really wish that w e would have waited so that maybe all of this could have been avoided, but ev erything happens for a reason.”

The convening authority did not grant any clemency.

Sentence Appropriateness

While this case was submitted on the merits, we elect to address the

appr opriateness of the appellant’s sentence. This Court “may affirm only . . . the sentence or such part or amount of the sentence, as it finds correct in law and fact and determines, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved.” Article 66(c), UCM J, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). We review sentence appropriateness de novo, employing “a sweeping congressional mandate” to ensure “a fair and just punishment for every
accused.” United States v. Baier , 60 M.J. 382, 384 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (citations omitted).

We as sess sentence appropriateness by considering the particular appellant, the nature and seriousness of the offense, the appellant’s record of service, and all matters contained
in the record of trial. See United States v. Bare , 63 M.J. 707, 714 (A.F. Ct. Cr im. App. 2006), aff’d , 65 M.J. 35 (C.A.A.F. 2007).

The appellant’s plea to all the offenses was provident. The convening authority
was able to consider all the evidence as well as the victim impact statement prior to acting on clemency. With respect to the Article 120, UCMJ, charge, it was the convening authority’s decision to determine whether the appellant’s conduct warranted a conviction
that will likely result in sex offender registration. The convening authority was able to
consider that the sexual intercourse occurred when the appellant was 19 years old, with a girl he had dat ed for a year before he entered the Air Force, who was 15 years and 11 months old at the time, who wrote letters on the appellant’s behalf, who expressed that the only victim impact came from the workings of the military justice process

, and whose own father wrote a letter on the appellant’s behalf.ACM 38453 4 We have a great deal of discretion in determining whether a particular sentence is appropriate

, but we are not authorized to eng age in exercises of clemency

, United States v. Healy , 26 M.J. 395, 395

- 96 (C.M.A. 1988)

. I n the absence of any error or other legal rationale, a decision to set aside a legal and factually sufficient plea would be an exercise in clemency. See United Stat es v. Nerad , 69 M.J. 138 (C.A.A.F. 2010). Having reviewed the entire record to include the matters submitted post

- trial

, we have determined that the sentence as adjudged and approved is appropriate for the appellant’s crimes

.

Conclusion

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occ urred. Article s 59(a)
and 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § § 859(a)

, 866(c); United States v. Reed , 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000). Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are

AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

STEVEN LUCAS
Clerk of the Court