UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Airman First Class WILLIAM J. BURTON

United States Air Force

ACM S32253

1 February 2016

Sentence adjudged 16 April 2014 by SPCM convened at Pope Army Air 

Field, Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Military Judge: Francisco Mendez.

Approved Sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 9 months, 

forfeiture of $1021.00 pay per month for 9 months, and reduction to E-1.

Appellate Counsel for Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Joy L. Primoli.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Major Thomas J. Alford; Captain 

Jason M. Kellhofer; and Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire.

Before

MITCHELL, MAYBERRY, and KIEFER

Appellate Military Judges

OPINION OF THE COURT

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent 

under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

KIEFER, Judge:

Pursuant to his pleas, Appellant was convicted of seven specifications of wrongful 

use of cocaine in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 912a. A panel of officer 

members sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 9 months, 

forfeiture of $1021.00 pay per month for 9 months, reduction to E-1, and a reprimand. 

The convening authority approved all aspects of the sentence except for the reprimand.
2 ACM S32253

Background

Between 14 October 2013 and 4 March 2014, Appellant used cocaine on seven 

occasions with friends near his hometown. Generally, Appellant would go home on 

weekends, meet up with former classmates, and go to bars or parties where Appellant and 

his friends used cocaine. These wrongful uses of cocaine resulted in multiple positive 

urinalysis results.

After the preferral of charges for a positive urinalysis, Appellant cried as he told 

his commander he had a drug problem and needed treatment. Appellant was provided 

treatment through the Air Force. Following Appellant’s entry into treatment, his

commander was informed that he had a fifth positive urinalysis. Shortly thereafter, on 

4 March 2014, Appellant’s commander restricted Appellant to base. On 7 March, the 

commander received notice of a sixth positive urinalysis. Following this sixth positive 

result the commander ordered Appellant into pretrial confinement on 11 March 2014. A 

pretrial confinement review officer (PCRO) reviewed the commander’s action and 

affirmed the decision to order pretrial confinement.

Appellant alleges four assignments of error: (1) the military judge erroneously 

failed to grant him additional pretrial confinement credit for illegal pretrial punishment 

under Article 13, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 813; (2) the sentence is inappropriately severe; 

(3) the staff judge advocate’s recommendation (SJAR) failed to inform the convening 

authority of 36 days of pretrial confinement credit; and (4) the SJAR failed to comment 

on legal errors.

Illegal Pretrial Punishment

Pursuant to Article 13, UCMJ, and Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 305, 

Appellant alleges that the military judge erroneously failed to grant him additional credit 

against his term of confinement based on the commander improperly ordering him into 

pretrial confinement following a period of base restriction. Appellant cites to multiple 

reasons why the commander’s and PCRO’s decisions to order pretrial confinement were 

erroneous, including the fact that his sixth positive urinalysis result did not reflect 

additional misconduct after the ordering of base restriction and the commander’s basis for 

ordering pretrial confinement was to send a message to the unit.

Article 13, UCMJ, reads:

No person, while being held for trial, may be subjected 

to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement 

upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or 

confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the 

circumstances required to insure his presence . . . .
3 ACM S32253

The question of intent to punish is “one significant factor in [the] judicial 

calculus” for determining whether there has been an Article 13 violation. United States v. 

Huffman, 40 M.J. 225, 227 (C.M.A. 1994) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979)). 

We will not overturn a military judge’s findings of fact, including a finding of no intent 

to punish, unless they are clearly erroneous. United States v. Smith, 53 M.J. 168, 170 

(C.A.A.F. 2000). “We will review de novo the ultimate question whether an appellant is 

entitled to credit for a violation of Article 13.” United States v. Mosby, 56 M.J. 309, 310 

(C.A.A.F. 2002)

Essentially, Article 13, UCMJ, prohibits two things: (1) the imposition of 

punishment prior to trial and (2) conditions of arrest or pretrial confinement that are more 

rigorous than necessary to ensure the accused’s presence for trial. The commander’s 

intent and basis for ordering pretrial confinement are important aspects of the analysis. 

R.C.M. 305(d) indicates that there is probable cause to order pretrial confinement 

when there is a reasonable belief that:

(1) An offense triable by court-martial has been committed; 

(2) The person confined committed it; and

(3) Confinement is required by the circumstances.

R.C.M. 305(h)(2)(B) lists factors the commander may consider in ordering or 

maintaining a person in pretrial confinement, including that: 

(iii) Confinement is necessary because it is foreseeable that: 

(a) The prisoner will not appear at trial, pretrial

hearing, or investigation, or 

(b) The prisoner will engage in serious criminal 

misconduct . . . .

Under R.C.M. 305(h)(2)(B), the commander must also determine that “[l]ess 

severe forms of restraint are inadequate.” The discussion to R.C.M. 305(h) lists factors 

the commander may consider in determining the appropriate level of restraint, to include 

the accused’s character and mental condition, the nature and circumstances of the 

charged offenses, and the weight of the evidence.

In this case, the military judge determined that the commander’s intent in ordering 

pretrial confinement was to deter continued serious misconduct and to ensure Appellant’s 

presence at trial. The military judge cited evidence of Appellant’s repeated violations of 

military law. The sixth positive urinalysis was collected before Appellant was placed on 

restriction; however, it caused the commander to reevaluate Appellant’s likelihood of 
4 ACM S32253

engaging in further serious misconduct by continuing to use cocaine. This belief was 

supported by later evidence that a urine sample obtained from Appellant on the day he 

was placed on restriction resulted in his seventh cocaine positive test result. The military 

judge also found the commander had legitimate concerns about Appellant’s attendance at

the court-martial. 

We find the conclusions of the military judge were not clearly erroneous, and there 

was no error in the military judge denying Appellant’s motion for additional pretrial 

confinement credit pursuant to Article 13, UCMJ.

Sentence Appropriateness

Appellant also argues that his sentence is inappropriately severe. This court “may 

affirm only such findings of guilty and the sentence or such part or amount of the 

sentence, as [we find] correct in law and fact and determine[], on the basis of the entire 

record, should be approved.” Article 66(c), UCMJ, 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) (quoting United States v. Bauerbach, 55 M.J. 501, 504 (Army 

Ct. Crim. App. 2001)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “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) (citing 

United States v. Snelling, 14 M.J. 267, 268 (C.M.A. 1982)). Although we are accorded 

great discretion in determining whether a particular sentence is appropriate, we are not 

authorized to engage in exercises of clemency. United States v. Nerad, 69 M.J. 138, 146

(C.A.A.F. 2010).

The military judge convicted Appellant of wrongful use of cocaine on seven 

occasions. At this special court-martial, Appellant faced a maximum sentence of a badconduct discharge, 12 months of confinement, forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 

12 months, and a reduction to E-1. A panel of officer members sentenced Appellant to a 

bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 9 months, forfeiture of $1021.00 pay per month 

for 9 months, reduction to E-1, and a reprimand. 

We have reviewed the entire record of trial including all evidence in mitigation 

and extenuation as well as evidence in aggravation. Appellant was convicted of seven 

distinct wrongful uses of cocaine in less than five months. Appellant’s conduct did not 

represent an isolated incident but demonstrated regular and repeated violations of military 

law. Based on the facts of this case, including the nature of the offenses and Appellant’s 

background, service record, and character, there is nothing that indicates Appellant’s 

sentence was inappropriately severe.
5 ACM S32253

Failure to Inform Convening Authority of Pretrial Confinement Credit

In his third assignment of error, Appellant alleges that the personal data sheet 

(PDS) and SJAR failed to properly note his 36 days of pretrial confinement credit. 

R.C.M. 1106(d)(3) governs the content of the SJAR and requires, in part, a copy 

of the report of the results of trial, setting forth the findings, sentence, and confinement 

credit. Pursuant to R.C.M. 1106(d)(3), the report of the results of trial is part of the 

SJAR. 

Review of the record shows that the PDS indicates “Nature of Pretrial Restraint: 

N/A.” This document was a prosecution exhibit at trial, and Appellant did not object to 

its admission. The report of the results of trial submitted as part of the SJAR shows 

“Pretrial Confinement Credit: 36.” Consequently, the SJAR properly noted the period of 

pretrial confinement credit. Additionally, trial defense counsel in his clemency request 

specifically mentioned that Appellant was placed in pretrial confinement. 

Even if we determined that there was error or confusion by the failure to indicate 

pretrial confinement credit on the PDS while including it on the SJAR, Appellant did not 

raise this error within his clemency submission. If Appellant does not make a timely 

comment on an error or omission in the SJAR, the error is waived unless it is prejudicial 

under a plain error analysis. United States v. Capers, 62 M.J. 268, 269 (C.A.A.F. 2005). 

Under a plain error analysis, we must determine whether there was error, whether it was 

plain, and whether it materially prejudiced a substantial right of the appellant. Id. With 

respect to an error in an SJA’s post-trial recommendation, the prejudice prong involves a 

relatively low threshold—a demonstration of some colorable showing of possible 

prejudice. Id. Our review is de novo. Id.

In this case, the report of the results of trial properly reflected the period of pretrial 

confinement credit. The “N/A” on the PDS regarding pretrial confinement was error and 

it was plain on its face. There is no evidence that Appellant did not receive the 36 days 

of pretrial confinement credit. Appellant has not produced any evidence that the 

convening authority was confused by the discrepancy between the report of the results of 

trial and the PDS. Appellant has not made a colorable showing of possible prejudice. 

We determine that Appellant has failed to surmount the low threshold for error in posttrial processing and deny him any relief on this issue.
6 ACM S32253

Addendum to SJAR and Purported Legal Errors Raised in Appellant’s Submissions

In his fourth assignment of error, Appellant asserts that the SJA failed to note legal 

errors raised in defense clemency submissions. We disagree. The thrust of Appellant’s 

clemency matters was to seek a reduced sentence based on sentence comparisons to other 

courts-martial and evidence in mitigation and extenuation. Appellant did not allege any 

legal errors. We do not regard a straightforward request for clemency as raising a legal 

error. R.C.M. 1106(d)(4) states that the SJA does not need to examine the record for 

legal errors and is only required to address whether corrective action is needed if the 

defense makes an allegation of legal error in the matters submitted under R.C.M. 1105 or 

otherwise deemed appropriate by the SJA. United States v. Foy, 30 M.J. 664 (A.F. Ct. 

Crim. App. 1990). “[T]he staff judge advocate is not required to specifically advise the 

convening authority on issues the appellant raises in her clemency submissions unless 

those issues are raised as legal error.” United States v. Taylor, 67 M.J. 578, 580 (A.F. Ct. 

Crim. App. 2008). The SJAR in this case indicates that no corrective action was required 

with regard to the findings or sentence. The SJAR and addendum complied with R.C.M. 

1106(d)(4).

Due to an unrelated error in the staff judge advocate’s advice to the convening 

authority about limitations on his ability to grant clemency, Appellant was afforded an 

opportunity to submit additional matters in clemency. Appellant did not raise the matter 

of the original addendum failing to address any other legal errors. “Because Appellant 

did not object to the recommendation of the SJA, we must determine [under a de novo 

review] whether there was error, whether it was plain, and whether it materially 

prejudiced a substantial right of the accused.” Capers, 62 M.J. at 269. We find no error 

and no colorable showing of possible prejudice under the facts of this case. 

Conclusion

The findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and no error materially 

prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant occurred. * Articles 59(a) and 66(c), 10 

U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c), UCMJ. 

 

* The court-martial order (CMO) incorrectly abbreviates the specifications by including an uncharged location for 

each offense “at or near Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina,” along with the charged location of “within the 

continental United States.” We order a corrected CMO. 
7 ACM S32253

Accordingly, the findings and the sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

 LEAH M. CALAHAN

Clerk of the Court