UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM 39283

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Kaylyn N. BROWN

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

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 22 January 2018

________________________

Military Judge: Mark W. Milam (arraignment); James E. Key III.

Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 13 months, 

and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. Sentence adjudged 10 April 

2017 by GCM convened at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota. 

For Appellant: Captain Mark J. Schwartz, USAF.

For Appellee: Colonel Katherine E. Oler, USAF; Lieutenant Colonel 

Joseph J. Kubler, USAF; Lieutenant Colonel G. Matt Osborn, USAF; 

Major Amanda L.K. Linares, USAF; Major Mary Ellen Payne, USAF.

Before HARDING, SPERANZA, and HUYGEN, Appellate Military 

Judges.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

________________________

PER CURIAM:

Appellant and another Airman stole and sold gunsights and night vision 

devices. After investigation uncovered her crimes, Appellant pleaded guilty 

before a military judge sitting as a general court-martial to selling military 

property, larceny of military property, conspiracy to commit larceny and sale
United States v. Brown, No. ACM 39283

2

of military property,1 and failing to obey a no-contact order, in violation of 

Articles 108, 121, 81, and 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 

U.S.C. §§ 908, 921, 881, 892. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a 

bad-conduct discharge, 13 months of confinement, and forfeiture of all pay 

and allowances. 

Appellant now claims, pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 

(C.M.A. 1982), that her sentence is inappropriately severe in comparison to 

her co-conspirator’s sentence and that she was neglected by her command 

while serving 32 days of confinement in a civilian facility. During our review 

of Appellant’s case, we considered the issues raised by Appellant and Appellant’s burden with respect to each matter. We summarily reject Appellant’s 

claims; they do not require additional analysis or warrant relief. See United 

States v. Matias, 25 M.J. 356 (C.M.A. 1987).

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no 

error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.2

FOR THE COURT

KATHLEEN M. POTTER

Acting Clerk of the Court

 

1 Appellant pleaded guilty to conspiring to steal and sell military property listed in 

the specification, except “an M-4 Carbine.” That portion of the specification was litigated. The military judge found Appellant not guilty of the excepted language that 

alleged Appellant conspired to steal and sell the military rifle. 

2 After arraignment, the military judge dismissed Specification 2 of Charge III. However, the court-martial order (CMO) and report of result of trial fail to address this 

specification. We are once again compelled to order a corrected CMO and report of 

result of trial to remedy the Government’s avoidable post-trial processing errors. See

United States v. Parker, 73 M.J. 914, 921 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2014) (“The Government would be well-advised to find no solace in our resolution of this obvious error. 

The Government's neglectful post-trial processing . . . created an issue where none 

should have existed.”).