UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM S32637

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Alejandro L. PEREZ

Airman Basic (E-1), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 14 June 2021

________________________

Military Judge: Colin P. Eichenberger.

Sentence: Sentence adjudged 14 November 2019 by SpCM convened at Beale

Air Force Base, California. Sentence entered by military judge on 28 November 2019: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 150 days, forfeiture of 

$1,120.00 pay per month for 5 months, and reduction to E-1.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel R. Davis Younts, USAF.

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Brian C. Mason, USAF; Major Peter 

F. Kellett, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire.

Before POSCH, RICHARDSON, and MEGINLEY, Appellate Military 

Judges.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.

________________________

PER CURIAM:

In accordance with Appellant’s pleas, pursuant to a plea agreement, a special court-martial composed of a military judge sitting alone found Appellant 

guilty of one specification of wrongful possession of cocaine, one specification 

of wrongful use of cocaine, and one specification of wrongful use of methamphetamine, all in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice 
United States v. Perez, No. ACM S32637

2

(UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 912a; and one specification of failure to obey a lawful order, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 892.1 As part of his plea 

agreement with the convening authority, Appellant waived his right to trial by 

members and requested to be tried by military judge alone. Appellant also 

agreed to plead guilty to all but one of the specifications; the one specification 

was withdrawn and dismissed upon the military judge’s acceptance of Appellant’s guilty plea. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a total of 150 days 

of confinement; to forfeit $1,120.00 of his pay per month for five months; and a 

bad-conduct discharge. The military judge awarded Appellant with 56 days of 

pretrial confinement credit.

Both the Government and Defense agreed to a four-page stipulation of fact 

as part of Appellant’s plea agreement which was marked as Prosecution Exhibit 1. As part of this stipulation, the parties agreed to include six attachments that were admitted into evidence. However, upon review of the record 

of trial, we found the attachments to Prosecution Exhibit 1 were not included 

with the stipulation in the original record of trial filed with the court. The six 

attachments are described as follows: 

(1) Positive Drug Urinalysis Result, dated 19 August 2019; 

(2) Order to Remain on Base, dated 6 September 2019; 

(3) Order to Remain on Base – Extension, dated 18 September 

2019; 

(4) Positive Cocaine Results from LabCorp Test, dated 19 September 2019; 

(5) DBIDS2 Record, dated 13 September 2019; and 

(6) DFSC3 Drug Test Results (Cocaine), dated 27 September 

2019.

“The standard of review for determining whether post-trial processing was 

properly completed is de novo.” United States v. Sheffield, 60 M.J. 591, 593 

(A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2004) (citing United States v. Kho, 54 M.J. 63, 65 (C.A.A.F. 

 

1 All references in this opinion to the UCMJ and Rules for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) are 

to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.).

2 DBIDS stands for Defense Biometric Identification System. It is a system used to 

identify stolen military identification cards, individuals barred from military installations, and other similar purposes.

3 DFSC stands for Defense Forensic Science Center.
United States v. Perez, No. ACM S32637

3

2000)). As part of post-trial processing, a complete record of proceedings, including all exhibits and a substantially verbatim recording of the court-martial 

proceeding, must be prepared for any special court-martial that results in a 

punitive discharge or more than six months confinement. Article 54(c), UCMJ, 

10 U.S.C. § 854; Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1112(b). If a record of trial is 

incomplete, a superior competent authority may return a record of trial to the 

military judge for correction. R.C.M. 1112(d). Corrective action as may be taken 

by a military judge includes “reconstructing the portion of the record affected.” 

R.C.M. 1112(d)(3)(A).

Furthermore, with respect to the missing attachments to the stipulation of 

fact, R.C.M. 1112(d)(2) states that “[t]he military judge shall give notice of the 

proposed correction to all parties and permit them to examine and respond to 

the proposed correction. All parties shall be given reasonable access to any 

court reporter notes or recordings of the proceedings.” 

Accordingly, the record of trial is RETURNED to the Chief Trial Judge, 

Air Force Trial Judiciary, for correction under R.C.M. 1112(d) by reconstructing the portion of the affected exhibit. 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).

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE

Clerk of the Court