UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM 39268

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Jarek P. PAULETT

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

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 14 September 2018

________________________

Military Judge: Andrew Kalavanos.

Approved sentence: Dishonorable discharge, confinement for 3 years and 

6 months, and reduction to E-1. Sentence adjudged 4 February 2017 by 

GCM convened at Hurlburt Field, Florida.

For Appellant: Major Meghan Glines-Barney, USAF.

For Appellee: Colonel Julie L. Pitvorec, USAF; Lieutenant Colonel Joseph J. Kubler, USAF; Lieutenant Colonel G. Matt Osborn, USAF; Major Tyler B. Musselman, USAF; Captain Michael T. Bunnell, USAF; 

Technical Sergeant Jonathan G. Rector, USAF; 1 Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire.

Before HARDING, HUYGEN, and POSCH, Appellate Military Judges.

Judge POSCH delivered the opinion of the court, in which Senior Judge

HARDING and Judge HUYGEN joined.

 

1 Technical Sergeant Rector is a military paralegal with the Air Force Legal Operations 

Agency and was at all times supervised by attorneys admitted to practice before this 

court.
United States v. Paulett, No. ACM 39268

2

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

________________________

POSCH, Judge:

A general court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members found 

Appellant guilty, contrary to his pleas, of one charge and two specifications of 

sexual assault in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice 

(UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 920. Appellant was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, 

confinement for three years and six months, and reduction to the grade of E-1. 

Before taking action on the findings and sentence, the convening authority deferred the automatic forfeiture of Appellant’s pay and allowances, and denied 

Appellant’s request for deferment of the reduction in grade. At action, the convening authority approved the adjudged sentence; however, he waived automatic forfeitures for a period of six months and directed payment to Appellant’s 

spouse for her benefit and the benefit of their unborn child.2

Appellant raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the military judge erred 

in denying one of Appellant’s challenges for cause and (2) whether the convening authority erred in denying Appellant’s request to defer his reduction in 

grade. Finding no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant, we affirm the findings and sentence.

I. BACKGROUND

Appellant was assigned to Hurlburt Field, Florida, where he met and became friends with a co-worker, Airman First Class (A1C) SS. In August 2015,

after playing a drinking game with A1C SS in her dorm room, Appellant put 

his hand under her shorts and penetrated her vulva with his fingers. Appellant’s conduct was unwelcomed and done without A1C SS’s consent, and with 

the intent to gratify Appellant’s sexual desires. Feeling violated and confused, 

A1C SS left Appellant alone in her room and went to another Airman’s room 

to sleep.

In October 2015, after an evening of heavy drinking with Appellant and 

other friends, A1C SS slept at an off-base apartment on a couch in the living 

room near where Appellant had also lain down to sleep. While A1C SS was 

“passed out,” Appellant penetrated her vulva with his penis. A1C SS described 

 

2 The convening authority’s action credited Appellant one day for illegal pretrial confinement in accordance with a ruling by the military judge.
United States v. Paulett, No. ACM 39268

3

not being fully aware of what was happening because she was impaired by the 

amount of alcohol she had drunk. When A1C SS awoke in the morning, she 

asked Appellant if he had had sex with her. Appellant told her “no” and put 

forward that she was probably just dreaming. Appellant suggested that nothing sexual could have happened to A1C SS while she slept because of her sleeping position on the couch. Despite these assurances, A1C SS grew increasingly

concerned that Appellant had sexually assaulted her. Later that afternoon, a 

friend drove A1C SS to an emergency room to undergo a sexual assault forensic 

examination.

The examination showed blunt-force penetrating injury to A1C SS’s genital 

area. Forensic testing matched Appellant’s DNA profile to seminal fluid collected on swabs taken from outside A1C SS’s vaginal area, from inside the underwear that A1C SS had worn during the assault, and from two stains found 

on the couch where she had slept.

In December 2015, Appellant was interviewed by agents of the Air Force 

Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI). Appellant initially denied that he or 

anyone else had engaged in sexual intercourse with A1C SS while she slept on 

the couch. Appellant repeatedly asserted that he could not recall any sexual 

activity with A1C SS, even after the agents confronted Appellant with the results of the DNA testing. Appellant later changed his story and claimed that 

A1C SS had asked Appellant if he wanted to have sex with her and that he had 

readily agreed, penetrating her one time for ten seconds, or at most, a minute 

or two.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Denial of Challenge for Cause for Implied Bias

Appellant elected to be tried by a panel consisting of officer and enlisted 

members. Of the 11 members detailed by the convening authority, the Defense 

challenged 8 members for cause. The military judge granted five challenges, 

four of which were unopposed by trial counsel. The military judge denied the 

challenge for cause of Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt) BB and two others. The 

Defense used its peremptory challenge on one of those other two.

Appellant contends CMSgt BB should have been excused after the Defense 

challenged him for cause, specifically, implied bias. The Defense’s three-part

basis for the implied bias challenge included that: (1) CMSgt BB was involved 

as an additional duty first sergeant in a sexual assault case at a previous assignment about two years prior; (2) CMSgt BB had read an email from the 

servicing legal office that said the court members had not found enough evidence to convict the Airman involved in that prior case; and (3) CMSgt BB
United States v. Paulett, No. ACM 39268

4

voiced concern during voir dire about the possibility that his service on Appellant’s court-martial panel might be criticized by others. The military judge denied the challenge. Appellant alleges the military judge erred. We are not persuaded.

1. Law

Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 912(f)(1)(N) provides that a member shall 

be excused for cause whenever it appears that the member “[s]hould not sit as 

a member in the interest of having the court-martial free from substantial 

doubt as to legality, fairness, and impartiality.” 

Implied bias is “viewed through the eyes of the public, focusing on the appearance of fairness.” United States v. Bagstad, 68 M.J. 460, 462 (C.A.A.F. 

2010) (quoting United States v. Clay, 64 M.J. 274, 276 (C.A.A.F. 2007)). Therefore, appellate courts employ an objective standard when reviewing a military 

judge’s decision regarding implied bias. United States v. Strand, 59 M.J. 455, 

458 (C.A.A.F. 2004). “The hypothetical ‘public’ is assumed to be familiar with 

the military justice system.” Bagstad, 68 M.J. at 462 (citing United States v. 

Downing, 56 M.J. 419, 423 (C.A.A.F. 2002)).

In reviewing challenges for cause under the implied bias standard, military 

judges are required to follow the “liberal grant” mandate, which “supports the 

UCMJ’s interest in ensuring that members of the military have their guilt or 

innocence determined ‘by a jury composed of individuals with a fair and open 

mind.’” United States v. James, 61 M.J. 132, 139 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (quoting 

United States v. Smart, 21 M.J. 15, 18 (C.M.A. 1985)). “[M]ilitary judges must 

follow the liberal-grant mandate in ruling on challenges for cause, but we will 

not overturn the military judge’s determination not to grant a challenge except 

for a clear abuse of discretion in applying the liberal-grant mandate.” United 

States v. White, 36 M.J. 284, 287 (C.M.A. 1993). “[I]n the absence of actual bias, 

where a military judge considers a challenge based on implied bias, recognizes 

his duty to liberally grant defense challenges, and places his reasoning on the 

record, instances in which the military judge’s exercise of discretion will be

reversed will indeed be rare.” Clay, 64 M.J. at 277.

2. Voir Dire of CMSgt BB

In response to a trial defense counsel question during group voir dire, 

CMSgt BB related he had some involvement in a sexual assault case a little 

over two years prior. He was filling in for a first sergeant when a member of 

his unit was identified as a subject for questioning by AFOSI. During individual voir dire, CMSgt BB explained his involvement:

I was contacted that they needed to see one of my members who 

happened to be on duty that day. So, I went and picked him up, 

brought him down to the [AFOSI] office. I was then released and 
United States v. Paulett, No. ACM 39268

5

they were questioning him. And then, I had to come back and 

pick him up. We took him over to the dorms so that they could 

collect evidence, and I stood outside the door with the lead 

[AFOSI] agent while we were waiting for them to do that. And, 

then, I transported him to the hospital off base so that they could 

do a sample kit. And then, once he was completed with the sample kit, then I drove him back to the base.

CMSgt BB explained that the result of the investigation was a court-martial that ended in a finding of not guilty. He watched the first three days of the 

trial until duties called him away. Earlier, during group voir dire, CMSgt BB 

expressed no concern that anyone in his chain of command would be disappointed in him if he were to find Appellant not guilty. However, he answered 

affirmatively to a question about whether his “service on this panel may be 

criticized by others.” Trial defense counsel probed further during individual 

voir dire, beginning with a question about the acquittal of the Airman in the 

previous case:

Q [Trial Defense Counsel]. . . . And what were your . . . views on 

the finding of not guilty?

A [CMSgt BB]. . . . I felt that it made the system show that it 

worked; but, there was an email that had gone out that said that 

there wasn’t enough evidence to be found—to find him guilty. 

. . . But that the system did work in that he went to court, he had 

his day in court, and was able to provide evidence of his innocence.

Q. And who is that email coming from?

A. It went out . . . from the [Judge Advocate General (JAG)] to 

the first sergeants distro list.

Q. I see. And so . . . the JAG was basically saying that something 

happened, but we just didn’t have enough evidence in this case 

to convict?

A. Yes, sir, that was what I took from the email.

Q. Okay. And you indicated that you are concerned that your 

service on this panel might be criticized?

. . . .

A. Just, in anything that goes on in life, things are armchair 

quarterbacked. People who aren’t part of the process, who don’t 

see what happened in this courtroom, once they hear the results, 

they’re just going to criticize anybody who was on there and have 
United States v. Paulett, No. ACM 39268

6

their own opinion on how things should have gone, and that’s 

just how I viewed it.

Q. . . . is part of that based on your experience with that previous 

case?

A. No, sir, more on just other emergencies like the [ ] Air Show 

crash. As soon as the crash happened, everybody’s . . . basically 

criticizing how the fire department responded, and you get a lot 

of that. You get a lot of false reporting that can make people decide that they could have done it better, or do it a different way 

than who was actually on the scene.

Trial defense counsel challenged CMSgt BB’s service on Appellant’s panel 

on the basis of implied bias, citing as disqualifying CMSgt BB’s involvement in 

the prior sexual assault case, the email he received from the legal office, and

CMSgt BB’s remarks about criticism by others.3

3. Ruling by the Military Judge

Before ruling on the challenge, the military judge addressed CMSgt BB’s 

observation about possible criticism by others, concluding that it was not directed at a court-martial’s outcome generally or Appellant’s case specifically:

[E]ssentially what [CMSgt BB] said was, any decision could be 

quote, criticized. Everyone gets armchair quarterbacked. And, 

when asked why he’s come to that sort of conclusion or world 

view, he talked about a prior case involving an air crash and how 

the response to that air crash was criticized. So, my recollection 

is that he was speaking to armchair quarterbacking, second 

guessing; that, basically, as a leader, any decision you make is 

going to be, on some level criticized. . . . [H]e did not say it with 

any sort of particularity as it relates to sexual assault or this 

case in particular . . . . 

The military judge ruled on this part of the Defense challenge, saying, 

“There was no indication of bias or concern or fear that there’d be some sort of 

negative repercussion depending on the outcome of this trial.” The military 

 

3 Trial defense counsel also challenged CMSgt BB for actual bias for the same three 

reasons and challenged him for both actual and implied bias on an unrelated ground 

not before us on appeal. Appellant does not raise the denial of the actual bias challenge 

on appeal. We have reviewed the record and find that the military judge did not err in 

denying the actual bias challenge.
United States v. Paulett, No. ACM 39268

7

judge also addressed the challenge insofar as it concerned CMSgt BB’s involvement in the prior sexual assault case and the email from the legal office that 

followed the acquittal:

[CMSgt BB] also talked about how one of his own unit members 

was questioned by [the AFOSI], how a kit was done, having 

watched his unit member go through the process, the member 

was acquitted as a result of it, he didn’t appear to have any sort 

of emotional or negative response to it. He watched -- I think he 

watched at the trial for about three days. In discussing the case, 

he talked about how alcohol was involved, underage drinking, 

kissing and so forth. But, ultimately, what he said was, and this 

is on an acquittal, his view on the findings showed that the system worked. Now, according to his recollection, an email went 

out from the legal office to the first sergeants to say that even if 

he was acquitted maybe, you know, something had taken place, 

but it certainly wasn’t Chief Master Sergeant [BB’s] explicit 

statements in the courtroom or his non-verbal behavior that, 

yeah, something happened, I guess this guy got away with it. 

There was no indication, whatsoever, of that. In fact, he just kept 

saying that the system worked.

Ultimately, the military judge denied the Defense challenge and provided 

the following explanation of his rationale:

I find [CMSgt BB’s] responses were very candid. He indicated 

that . . . he would be able and willing to follow the court’s instruction. Again, [CMSgt BB] appeared thoughtful and sincere 

in all of his responses, and he appears to be taking his duties as 

a member of this court very, very seriously. He also appears confident and not susceptible to improper inference or coercion, and 

that he’ll come to his own decisions based on the evidence that 

he’s presented in this case as well as the law that is instructed 

on -- the law that is given to him. Therefore, I have considered 

the challenge for cause on the basis of both actual and implied 

bias and the mandate to liberally grant defense challenges, and 

the challenge is denied.

4. Analysis

The crux of Appellant’s argument on appeal is that the military judge erred 

in denying the challenge for implied bias because a member of the public would 

conclude that CMSgt BB was vulnerable to concerns about outside criticism, 

or in the words of the trial defense counsel, “[CMSgt BB] may be voting a certain way because he’s sort of scared or not sure about how others will view 
United States v. Paulett, No. ACM 39268

8

him.” We have examined the entirety of CMSgt BB’s voir dire and the military 

judge’s observations of CMSgt BB’s demeanor and find that the military judge 

did not err in denying the challenge for implied bias.

In determining whether the public may question the fairness of the trial 

with CMSgt BB serving as a panel member, we begin our analysis with his 

affirmative response to the Defense question, “Do you believe that your service 

on this panel may be criticized by others?” CMSgt BB’s perception that outsiders might be disposed to examine the panel’s findings and sentence and find 

fault is the beginning of a proper line of inquiry to find implied bias, but it is 

not the end. What matters is not that a prospective member is aware that others who neither examined evidence nor deliberated might criticize a result.

Rather, what matters is whether the concern that others may criticize will influence a panel member’s decision making, and if the public can be certain that 

the member’s judgment was not swayed by consideration of what others might 

think. This court does not have those concerns here. It is evident from our review of the record that CMSgt BB’s reference to “armchair quarterback[ing]” 

was a criticism of outsiders who judge without having participated firsthand 

in the problem solving. 

We next consider the other two bases of the Defense challenge for cause: 

CMSgt BB’s involvement in a prior sexual assault case and the email he received from the legal office following that Airman’s acquittal. Although the record does not reveal the contents of that email other than it stated that there 

was insufficient evidence to find the Airman guilty in that prior sexual assault 

case, there is no indication that either the email or CMSgt BB’s knowledge of 

the prior case would affect whether or how he would exercise his independent 

judgment in Appellant’s case. In CMSgt BB’s words, what he learned from the 

prior case and had confirmed by the email was that “the system did work in 

that [the accused in the other case] went to court, he had his day in court,” and 

he was acquitted.

We conclude that, viewed through the eyes of the public and focusing on 

the appearance of fairness, there was no demonstration of implied bias in 

CMSgt BB’s responses to voir dire questions. On the contrary, his answers 

tended to show his willingness to decide the case based on the evidence at trial 

and his belief in the integrity and fairness of the system.

The military judge did not commit a clear abuse of discretion in denying 

the challenge for cause on the basis of implied bias. The military judge, through 

the entire voir dire process, frequently referenced the liberal grant mandate in 

granting and denying challenges for cause. The military judge specifically cited 

the liberal grant mandate as the justification for granting one Defense challenge for cause. From our review of the record in its entirety, we conclude that 

the military judge’s recitation of the liberal grant mandate was not merely a 
United States v. Paulett, No. ACM 39268

9

perfunctory or talismanic reference and is worthy of some deference. The military judge considered the challenge based upon implied bias, recognized his 

duty to liberally grant defense challenges, and placed his rationale on the record. Under the totality of the circumstances, we find no reason to disturb his 

ruling. United States v. Terry, 64 M.J. 295, 302 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (quoting 

Strand, 59 M.J. at 456).

B. Denial of Request to Defer Reduction in Grade

Three days after Appellant’s court-martial ended, trial defense counsel 

made a written request of the convening authority to defer both Appellant’s 

reduction in grade and automatic forfeiture of pay and allowances until final 

action, in accordance with Articles 57(a) and 58b, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 857(a), 

858b, and R.C.M. 1101(c) and (d). Trial defense counsel noted in his request on 

behalf of Appellant that “[b]y deferring the forfeitures you will give [Appellant’s wife] time to get on her feet and smooth her transition to supporting 

herself.” Nine days later, on 16 February 2017, the convening authority approved deferment of automatic forfeitures until action and denied Appellant’s 

request to defer the reduction in grade; however, the convening authority did 

not articulate any reason for the denial. On 18 February 2017, 14 days after 

the date on which Appellant’s sentence was adjudged, the reduction in grade 

automatically took effect by operation of Article 57(a)(1)(A), UCMJ.

In clemency, trial defense counsel asked the convening authority to waive 

automatic forfeitures for the benefit of Appellant’s wife and their unborn child,

but did not renew Appellant’s request to defer the reduction in grade or ask 

that the reduction be disapproved. The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence on 31 May 2017 and granted clemency by waiving the automatic forfeitures for a period of six months from action.

Responding to a show-cause order of this court, the Government submitted 

an affidavit from the convening authority who denied Appellant’s request to 

defer the reduction in grade. See United States v. Gentry, No. ACM S31361, 

2008 CCA LEXIS 454, at *7–8 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 30 Oct. 2008) (unpub. op.) 

(quoting United States v. Blanch, 29 M.J. 672, 673 (A.F.C.M.R. 1989) (permitting the Government to “‘enhance the paper trail’ to clarify post-trial processing issues.”)). In his affidavit, the convening authority explains the reasons 

for the denial of the deferment: 

[T]he severity of [Appellant’s] crimes warranted immediate removal of Appellant’s rank to maintain good order and discipline. 

. . . [and] Appellant did not demonstrate that his interests and 

the interests of the community in deferring the reduction in 

grade outweighed the community’s interest in imposing the reduction on its [effective] date.
United States v. Paulett, No. ACM 39268

10

Appellant claims it was error for the convening authority not to give a reason for the denial of Appellant’s request to defer the reduction in grade until 

action. Appellant also avers that the denial itself was error and requests that 

this court grant relief as the court deems appropriate under our Article 66(c), 

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c), authority to approve only the sentence, or such part 

of the sentence, that we find on the basis of the entire record should be approved.

We review the convening authority’s action on a deferment request for an 

abuse of discretion. R.C.M. 1101(c)(3). “When a convening authority acts on an 

accused’s request for deferment of all or part of an adjudged sentence, the action must be in writing . . . and must include the reasons upon which the action 

is based.” United States v. Sloan, 35 M.J. 4, 6–7 (C.M.A. 1992) (footnote omitted), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Dinger, 77 M.J. 447 (C.A.A.F. 

2018); see also R.C.M. 1101(c)(3), Discussion (“If the request for deferment is 

denied, the basis for the denial should be in writing and attached to the record 

of trial.”).

The convening authority failed to identify any reason in the 16 February 

2017 written denial of the deferral of Appellant’s reduction in grade. This was 

error. However, the convening authority’s omission does not entitle Appellant 

to relief unless it materially prejudiced a substantial right. United States v. 

Eppes, No. ACM 38881, 2017 CCA LEXIS 152, at *43 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 21 

Feb. 2017) (unpub. op.) (citing Article 59(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 859(a)). 

“[A]bsent credible evidence that a convening authority denied a request to defer punishment for an unlawful or improper reason, an erroneous omission of 

reasons in a convening authority’s denial of a deferment request does not entitle an appellant to relief.” Id. at *43 (citing United States v. Zimmer, 56 M.J. 

869, 874 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2002)).

We have no evidence that Appellant was materially prejudiced by the omitted explanation or that the convening authority’s denial was for an unlawful 

or improper reason. While appellate defense counsel avers that Appellant’s

wife received “severely reduced financial support at the time she needed it 

most,” the convening authority balanced Appellant’s interests against the severity of Appellant’s crimes and the effect of deferment on good order and discipline and denied the request. Without the necessary showing of prejudice, we 

find the error does not warrant relief. See United States v. Jalos, No. ACM 

39138, 2017 CCA LEXIS 607, at *5–6 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 5 Sep. 2017) (unpub. 

op.) (“Even when there is error in the convening authority’s action on a deferment request, relief is only warranted if an appellant makes a colorable showing of possible prejudice.”).
United States v. Paulett, No. ACM 39268

11

III. CONCLUSION

The finding of guilt and the 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), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). Accordingly, the findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE

Clerk of the Court