UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM 40429

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Brandon A. WOOD

Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 13 August 2024

________________________

Military Judge: Christopher D. James (arraignment); Dayle P. Percle.

Sentence: Sentence adjudged 18 October 2022 by GCM convened at 

Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. Sentence entered by military 

judge on 13 December 2022: Dishonorable discharge, confinement for 12

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

For Appellant: Major Spencer R. Nelson, USAF.

For Appellee: Colonel Steven R. Kaufman, USAF; Lieutenant Colonel 

Thomas J. Alford, USAF; Lieutenant Colonel J. Pete Ferrell, USAF; Major Jocelyn Q. Wright, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire.

Before: JOHNSON, GRUEN, and KEARLEY, 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This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 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:

A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, in 

accordance with his pleas and pursuant to a plea agreement, of one specification of wrongful possession of child pornography in violation of Article 134, 
United States v. Wood, No. ACM 40429

2

Uniform of Code Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 934.

1 The military judge 

sentenced Appellant to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for 12 months, 

reduction to the grade of E-1, and a reprimand. The convening authority took 

no action on the findings and did not modify the adjudged sentence. The convening authority denied Appellant’s request for deferment of the reduction to 

the grade of E-1, but waived automatic forfeitures for six months for the benefit 

of Appellant’s dependent child.

Appellant raises one issue on appeal: whether as applied to Appellant, reference to 18 U.S.C. § 922 in the Statement of Trial Results and entry of judgment is unconstitutional where the Government cannot demonstrate that barring his possession of firearms is “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”2 when he was not convicted of a violent offense.3

After carefully considering this issue and for the reasons explained in United 

States v. Vanzant, __ M.J. __, No. ACM 22004, 2024 CCA LEXIS 215, at *24 

(A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 28 May 2024) and United States v. Lepore, 81 M.J. 759, 

763 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2021) (en banc), we find Appellant is not entitled to 

relief. 

In this case, Appellant did not raise the issue of the convening authority’s 

failure to provide a reason in writing for the denial of the request for deferment. We, however, address this issue sua sponte. The convening authority’s 

Decision on Action Memorandum indicates Appellant requested waiver of forfeitures for six months and deferment of reduction in grade for six months. The 

convening authority granted the request for waiver of automatic forfeitures, 

but expressly denied the deferment request. However, the convening authority 

did not provide a reason in writing for the denial of the request for deferment 

of reduction in grade. The record discloses no indication the Defense objected 

or moved for correction of the convening authority’s failure to address the reasons why he denied the request to defer reduction in grade.

We review a convening authority’s denial of a deferment request for an 

abuse of discretion. United States v. Sloan, 35 M.J. 4, 6 (C.M.A. 1992), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Dinger, 77 M.J. 447, 453 (C.A.A.F. 

2018); Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1103(d)(2). “When a convening authority acts on an [appellant]’s request for deferment of all or part of an adjudged 

sentence, the action must be in writing (with a copy provided to the [appellant]) 

1 All references to the UCMJ and the Rules for Courts-Martial are to the Manual for 

Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.).

2 Citing N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2130 (2022).

3 Appellant personally raised this issue pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 

431 (C.M.A. 1982).
United States v. Wood, No. ACM 40429

3

and must include the reasons upon which the action is based.” Id. at 7 (footnote 

omitted); see also R.C.M. 1103(d)(2) (“The action of the authority acting on the 

deferment request shall be in writing” and “provided to the accused.”). 

“A motion to correct an error in the action of the convening authority shall 

be filed within five days after the party receives the convening authority’s action.” R.C.M. 1104(b)(2)(B).

Because Appellant did not object or move to correct an error in the convening authority’s decision on action, we review the convening authority’s decision 

therein to deny the deferment for plain error. See United States v. Ahern, 76 

M.J. 194, 197 (C.A.A.F. 2017) (citations omitted) (noting appellate courts review forfeited issues for plain error). Under the longstanding precedent of 

Sloan, the convening authority’s failure to state the reasons he denied the request to defer reduction in rank was an error. See 35 M.J. at 7. For purposes of 

our analysis, we assume without holding the error was clear or obvious. However, under the circumstances of this case, we find no material prejudice to 

Appellant. Appellant bore “the burden of showing that the interests of [himself] 

and the community in deferral outweigh[ed] the community’s interests in imposition of the punishment on its effective date.” R.C.M. 1103(d)(2). Appellant 

not only forfeited the issue at the time, but he has not alleged on appeal prejudicial error by the convening authority. Furthermore, the convening authority granted Appellant’s request to waive automatic forfeitures for the benefit 

of his dependent child pursuant to Article 58b, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 858b. Given 

Appellant requested deferral of his reduction in rank “because his paycheck is 

going to his family,” we are confident the convening authority entertained the 

rationale for the requested waiver and deferral. There is no indication the convening authority entertained an improper rationale for denying deferment of 

reduction in rank and we find Appellant’s material rights were not substantially prejudiced by the convening authority’s failure to state the reasons for 

the denial.

The findings and sentence as entered are correct in law and fact, and no 

error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 

59(a) and 66(d), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d). Accordingly, the findings 

and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE

Clerk of the Court