UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM S32654

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

James T. DANIEL

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

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 26 July 2021

________________________

Military Judge: Jennifer E. Powell.

Sentence: Sentence adjudged on 20 February 2020 by SpCM convened at 

Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington. Sentence entered by military judge on 

10 March 2020: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 2 months, forfeiture of 

$1,155.00 pay per month for 6 months, reduction to E-1, and a reprimand.

For Appellant: Major Matthew L. Blyth, USAF.

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Matthew J. Neil, USAF; Major Alex B. 

Coberly, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire; MacCaelin A. Sedita (legal intern).1

Before MINK, KEY, and ANNEXSTAD, Appellate Military Judges.

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

MINK and Judge KEY joined.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.

________________________

 

1 Mr. Sedita was supervised by attorneys admitted to practice before this court.
United States v. Daniel, No. ACM S32654

2

ANNEXSTAD, Judge:

A special court-martial convicted Appellant, in accordance with his pleas

and pursuant to a plea agreement, of one charge and specification of attempted 

wrongful possession of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) with 

the intent to distribute, in violation of Article 80, Uniform Code of Military 

Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 880; and one charge with one specification of 

wrongful use of MDMA on divers occasions, one specification of wrongful use 

of Adderall on divers occasions, one specification of wrongful use of cocaine, 

one specification of wrongful use of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and one 

specification of wrongful use of psilocybin, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ,

10 U.S.C. § 912a.2 A panel of officer members sentenced Appellant to a badconduct discharge, confinement for two months, forfeiture of $1,155.00 pay per 

month for six months, hard labor without confinement for three months, reduction to the grade of E-1, and a reprimand. The convening authority disapproved the adjudged hard labor without confinement for three months.

Appellant raises one issue for our consideration: whether his sentence is 

inappropriately severe. Finding no error materially prejudicial to a substantial 

right of Appellant, we affirm the findings and sentence.

I. BACKGROUND

Appellant joined the Air Force in April 2017. His first duty assignment was 

Fairchild Air Force Base (AFB), Washington, where he worked as a KC-135 

maintainer. Between March and August 2019, at various locations in the state 

of Washington, Appellant used illegal drugs. His illegal activities eventually 

came to the attention of law enforcement in August 2019. At that time, the Air 

Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) detachment at Fairchild AFB

was investigating another Air Force member, Airman First Class (A1C) DR,

for illegal drug use.3 After reviewing text messages on A1C DR’s phone, AFOSI 

agents uncovered information that Appellant had discussed using LSD with 

A1C DR. As a result of this information, Appellant was questioned by AFOSI

agents and subsequently admitted to extensive drug use in the spring and summer of 2019.

At trial, Appellant admitted that in March 2019, he attempted to purchase 

$90.00 worth of MDMA from Senior Airman (SrA) ST. Appellant further admitted that he attempted this purchase with a plan to distribute a portion of 

 

2 All references to the UCMJ are to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 

ed.).

3 All references to military rank in this opinion are to the rank of the military member 

at the time of Appellant’s court-martial.
United States v. Daniel, No. ACM S32654

3

the purchased MDMA to two other Air Force members, SrA CT and Airman 

(Amn) SV. Appellant also admitted to using cocaine with SrA ST in March 

2019. Appellant further admitted to using MDMA on two occasions between 

April 2019 and August 2019. On one of these occasions, Appellant used MDMA 

with SrA ST and A1C DR. On the other occasion, he used MDMA with SrA CT, 

Amn SV, A1C BS, and SrA JS, in a dorm room on Fairchild AFB. Appellant 

also admitted to using Adderall on two occasions—between May and July of 

2019—with a number of Air Force members, including SrA CT, Amn SV, and 

SrA JS. Additionally, Appellant admitted to using LSD in July 2019 with Amn 

SV, SrA JS, A1C BS, SrA CT, and A1C PD. Finally, Appellant admitted to 

using psilocybin in August 2019 with SrA CT, SrA JS, A1C BS, Amn SV, and 

A1C JF in SrA CT’s on-base dorm room.

At the end of the interview, Appellant was asked to work as a confidential 

source for AFOSI. Between 28 August 2019 and 9 November 2019, his cooperation assisted AFOSI in collecting evidence of illegal drug activity by a number 

of other Airmen stationed at Fairchild AFB.

II. DISCUSSION

Appellant argues on appeal that his sentence was inappropriately severe. 

Appellant asks this court to compare his sentence with those of four Airmen 

with whom he used drugs and find that his sentence was “highly disparate” to 

theirs. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments and accordingly deny relief.

A. Additional Background

To support his assignment of error, Appellant filed a motion to attach the 

entry of judgment (EoJ) from the courts-martial of SrA JS, A1C BS, Amn SV,

and SrA CT. The Government opposed Appellant’s motion to attach and our 

consideration of the attached EoJs. We granted the motion to attach these 

EoJs.4 A brief discussion of the sentences received by these four other military 

members is warranted.

SrA JS, A1C BS, Amn SV, and SrA CT were all found guilty at trials by 

special court-martial, by a military judge sitting alone, of various drug-related 

offenses. While some of the charges were similar by date or offense, none of the 

 

4 We understand that we are permitted to consider matters from outside the record of 

trial when necessary to resolve issues raised by materials in the record of trial. See 

United States v. Jessie, 79 M.J. 437, 442–44 (C.A.A.F. 2020). The involvement of SrA 

JS, A1C BS, Amn SV, and SrA CT in some of the Appellant’s drug offenses was raised 

by the stipulation of fact admitted at trial, and we considered the EoJs in our determination of whether Appellant’s case was closely related to their cases and whether the 

sentences were highly disparate.
United States v. Daniel, No. ACM S32654

4

members faced identical charges. SrA JS was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 120 days, reduction to the grade of E-1, and a reprimand. A1C BS was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for two 

months, reduction to E-1, and a reprimand. Amn SV was sentenced to a badconduct discharge, confinement for 120 days, and reduction to the grade of E1. Finally SrA CT was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 

45 days, forfeiture of $1,155.00 pay per month for two months, and reduction 

to the grade of E-1.

Comparing his sentence to those of these four Airmen, Appellant asks us 

not to affirm the forfeiture of $1,155.00 pay for six months because it is disparate to the adjudged forfeitures, or lack thereof, in these other cases.

The Government argues that we should not compare Appellant’s sentence 

to the sentences of these other Airmen because Appellant has not met his burden of showing that the cases are closely related. The Government acknowledges some overlap between the cases; however, it argues there is much that 

we do not know about the trials of SrA JS, A1C BS, Amn SV, and SrA CT, 

including the unique facts and circumstances of the other members’ drug use 

and whether there were significant mitigating or extenuating facts in their 

cases—such as plea agreement negotiations. The Government also argues that 

the sentences were not highly disparate. Specifically, the Government notes 

that other members were sentenced to longer periods of confinement than Appellant and that one was adjudged forfeitures, albeit for a shorter period of 

time than Appellant.

B. Law

We review sentence appropriateness de novo. United States v. Lane, 64 

M.J. 1, 2 (C.A.A.F. 2006). We may affirm only as much of the sentence as we 

find correct in law and fact and determine should be approved on the basis of 

the entire record. Article 66(d)(1), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(d)(1). “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. Sauk, 74 M.J. 594, 606 

(A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2015) (en banc) (per curiam) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Anderson, 67 M.J. 703, 705 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2009)). 

Although we have great discretion to determine whether a sentence is appropriate, we have no authority to grant mercy. United States v. Nerad, 69 M.J. 

138, 146 (C.A.A.F. 2010).

During our review of sentence appropriateness under Article 66(d), UCMJ, 

10 U.S.C. § 866(d), we “are required to engage in sentence comparison only ‘in 

those rare instances in which sentence appropriateness can be fairly determined only by reference to disparate sentences adjudged in closely related 
United States v. Daniel, No. ACM S32654

5

cases.’” United States v. Sothen, 54 M.J. 294, 296 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (quoting 

United States v. Ballard, 20 M.J. 282, 283 (C.M.A. 1985)).

When arguing sentence disparity and asking us to compare his sentence 

with the sentences of others, Appellant bears the burden of demonstrating 

those other cases are “closely related” to his, and if so, that the sentences are 

“highly disparate.” See United States v. Lacy, 50 M.J. 286, 288 (C.A.A.F. 1999). 

Cases are “closely related” when, for example, they include “coactors involved 

in a common crime, servicemembers involved in a common or parallel scheme, 

or some other direct nexus between the servicemembers whose sentences are 

sought to be compared.” Id. The test for whether sentences are “highly disparate” is “not limited to a narrow comparison of the relative numerical values of 

the sentences at issue, but also may include consideration of the disparity in 

relation to the potential maximum punishment.” Id. at 289. If an appellant 

meets that burden, then the Government must show a rational basis for the 

sentence differences. Id. at 288.

“Sentence comparison does not require sentence equation.” United States 

v. Durant, 55 M.J. 258, 260 (C.A.A.F. 2001). “[T]he military system must be 

prepared to accept some disparity in the sentencing of codefendants, provided 

each military accused is sentenced as an individual.” Id. at 261. “[C]harging 

decisions by commanders in consultation with their trial counsel, as well as 

referral decisions by convening authorities after advice from their Staff Judge 

Advocates, can certainly lead to differences in sentencing.” Id.

C. Analysis

We need not determine whether the four cases cited by Appellant are 

closely related to his case, or whether the Government can show a rational 

basis for sentencing differences, because Appellant has failed to establish that 

his sentence, as compared to those of the other Airmen, is highly disparate. See

Lacy, 50 M.J. at 288. After a review of the EoJs, we discern the following about 

the sentences: (1) each court-martial resulted in a bad-conduct discharge and 

reduction to the grade of E-1; (2) two Airmen were sentenced to longer periods 

of confinement than Appellant; and (3) Appellant was not the only member

sentenced to forfeiture of $1,155.00 pay per month for some length of time. In 

fact, we note that SrA CT was sentenced to forfeiture of $1,155.00 pay per 

month for two months, and that three others—SrA JS, A1C BS, and Amn SV—

were all subject to automatic forfeiture of two-thirds of their pay per month—

$1,155.00—while in confinement. See Article 58b(a)(1), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §

858b (providing for automatic forfeiture of two-thirds pay due to a member who 

is sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge and some period of confinement).

While it is true that none of the other Airmen were sentenced to forfeiture of 

$1,155.00 pay for six months, they all forfeited $1,155.00 pay per month for 

anywhere from 60 to 120 days and two received longer terms of confinement 
United States v. Daniel, No. ACM S32654

6

than Appellant. Although the sentences are not identical, we find that Appellant has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that the sentences are highly 

disparate. See Durant, 55 M.J. at 261.

We have considered the particular circumstances of Appellant’s case, including his involvement with illegal drugs over an extended period of time, as 

well as the extenuation and mitigation evidence presented. Having given individualized consideration to Appellant, the nature and seriousness of the offenses, Appellant’s record of service including his deployment, and all other 

matters contained in the record of trial, we conclude that the sentence, including forfeiture of $1,155.00 pay per month for six months, is not inappropriately 

severe.

III. CONCLSION

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

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant 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