Court Opinion

ID: 4399630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-05-23 08:01:05.177747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:30:54.364759
License: Public Domain

U NITED S TATES AIR F ORCE
             C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
                          ________________________

                              No. ACM S32535
                          ________________________

                            UNITED STATES
                                Appellee
                                      v.
                        Kyle R. HERNANDEZ
           Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
                          ________________________

        Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
                           Decided 21 May 2019
                          ________________________

Military Judge: Mark F. Rosenow.
Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 6 months,
reduction to E-1, and a reprimand. Sentence adjudged 19 April 2018 by
SpCM convened at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia.
For Appellant: Major Rebecca J. Otey, USAF; Major Mark J. Schwartz,
USAF.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Joseph J. Kubler, USAF; Mary Ellen
Payne, Esquire.
Before JOHNSON, DENNIS, and LEWIS, 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    This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as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:
    The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no er-
ror materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles
                 United States v. Hernandez, No. ACM S32535

59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c)
(2016). Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED. *

                  FOR THE COURT

                  CAROL K. JOYCE
                  Clerk of the Court

* We note the court-martial order fails to reflect the plea and finding with respect to
the Specification of Charge I. In addition, we note the court-martial order omits the
language of the reprimand from the convening authority’s action. We direct the publi-
cation of a corrected court-martial order to remedy these errors.

                                          2