Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Parker C. Myslow, Petitioner v. United States

ia

APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Order Denying Petition, United

States v. Myslow, No. 26-0050 (Jan. 6,

2026)..................................................................... 1a

Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals

Opinion, United States v. Myslow, No.

ACM 40668 (Aug. 21, 2024) ................................ 2a

Entry of Judgment in the case of United

States v. Myslow (Oct. 10, 2025) ....................... 16a

1st Ind., Entry of Judgment in the case

of United States v. Myslow (Apr. 22,

2024)................................................................... 22a

Department of the Air Force Regulations

Department of the Air Force Instruction

51-201, Administration of Military

Justice (Jan. 24, 2024) ........................................ 25a

Air Force Manual 71-102, Air Force

Criminal Indexing (July 21, 2020) ..................... 39a

Entry of Judgment Template ................................. 47a

1a

United States Court of Appeals

for the Armed Forces

Washington, D.C.

United States,

Appellee

USCA Dkt. No. 26-0050/AF

Crim.App. No. 40668

v.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

Parker C.

Myslow,

Appellant

On consideration of the petition for grant of review

of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of

Criminal Appeals, it is, by the Court, this 6th day of

January, 2026,

ORDERED:

That the petition is hereby denied.

For the Court,

/s/

cc:

Malcolm H. Squires, Jr.

Clerk of the Court

The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force

Appellate Defense Counsel (Flanagan)

Appellate Government Counsel (Payne)

2a

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM 40668

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Parker C. MYSLOW

Second Lieutenant (O-1), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial

Judiciary

Decided 10 October 2025

________________________

Military Judge: Pilar G. Wennrich.

Sentence: Sentence adjudged on 26 March 2024 by

GCM convened at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base,

North Carolina. Sentence entered by military judge on

22 April 2024: Dismissal.

For Appellant: Major Brian E. Flanagan, USAF;

Major Frederick J. Johnson, USAF.

For Appellee: Colonel G. Matt Osborn, USAF;

Lieutenant Colonel Thomas J. Alford, USAF;

Lieutenant Colonel Jenny A. Liabenow, USAF; Major

Vanessa Bairos, USAF; Major Kate E. Lee, USAF;

Major Jocelyn Q. Wright, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne,

Esquire.

3a

Before DOUGLAS, MASON, and KUBLER, Appellate

Military Judges.

Judge KUBLER delivered the opinion of the court, in

which Senior Judge DOUGLAS and Judge MASON

joined.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as

such, does not serve as precedent under

AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure

30.4.

________________________

KUBLER, Judge:

A military judge sitting at a general court-martial

found Appellant guilty, consistent with his pleas, of

one specification of failure to obey a lawful general

regulation

by

wrongfully

using

delta-8tetrahydrocannabinol (THC-8) on divers occasions,

and one specification of wrongfully using a Schedule I

controlled substance, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol

(THC-9), on divers occasions, in violation of Articles

92 and 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice

(UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 892, 912a.1

Prior to trial, Appellant spent 161 days in pretrial

confinement and entered into a negotiated plea

agreement, voluntarily pleading guilty to the charges

and specifications above and agreeing “a dismissal

shall be adjudged,” in exchange for the guarantee that

no additional confinement would be adjudged and that

two additional charges which carried the potential for

1 Unless otherwise noted, all references to the UCMJ and to the

Rules for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) are to the Manual for CourtsMartial, United States (2019 ed.).

4a

an additional 14 years of confinement would be

dismissed with prejudice upon announcement of

sentence.

The military judge sentenced Appellant to a

dismissal as required by the plea agreement, and the

convening authority took no action on the findings or

the sentence. In addition to stating the foregoing

information, the entry of judgment contained this

indorsement: “The following criminal indexing is

required . . . according to the references listed: . . .

Firearm Prohibition Triggered Under 18 U.S.C. § 922:

Yes.”

This court docketed Appellant’s case on 5

September 2024—163 days after the sentence was

adjudged on 26 March 2024 and 13 days beyond the

150-day standard for facially unreasonable delay this

court established in United States v. Livak, 80 M.J.

631, 633 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2020).

Appellant raises three issues on appeal which we

have rephrased: whether (1) Appellant’s sentence is

inappropriately severe; (2) Appellant is entitled to

relief for post-trial docketing delay of 13 days; and (3)

as applied to Appellant, 18 U.S.C. § 922 is

unconstitutional.

We have carefully considered issue (3) and find it

warrants neither discussion nor relief. See United

States v. Guinn, 81 M.J. 195, 204 (C.A.A.F. 2021)

(citing United States v. Matias, 25 M.J. 356, 361

(C.M.A. 1987)); see also United States v. Johnson, __

M.J. __, No. 24-0004, 2025 CAAF LEXIS 499, at *13–

14 (C.A.A.F. 24 Jun. 2025) (holding Courts of Criminal

Appeals lack “authority to modify the [18 U.S.C.] § 922

indication” in the entry of judgment)

5a

As to the remaining issues, we find no error that

materially prejudiced Appellant’s substantial rights,

and we affirm the findings and sentence.

I. BACKGROUND

Appellant began his short Air Force career by

using THC-8 and THC-9 in July 2023, the month he

arrived at his first duty location, Seymour Johnson

Air Force Base (AFB), North Carolina. The 15th Air

Force Deputy Commander addressed Appellant’s first

use of THC-8 and THC-9 by issuing him nonjudicial

punishment, pursuant to Article 15, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C.

§ 815.

Urinalysis Date

THC-8

14 August 20232

1653 ng/ml ↑ 122 ng/ml ↓

23 August 2023

161 ng/ml ↓

453 ng/ml ↑

5 September 2023

36 ng/ml ↓

340 ng/ml ↓

14 September 2023 21 ng/ml ↓

465 ng/ml ↑

27 September 2023 564 ng/ml ↑

91 ng/ml ↓

6 October 2023

34 ng/ml ↓

1423 ng/ml ↑

THC-9

Faced with Appellant’s continued use of THC-8

and THC-9, his commander ordered Appellant into

pretrial confinement on 17 October 2023, and

preferred charges on 20 October 2023. The charges,

2 Appellant’s 31 July 2023 urine sample tested positive for THC-

8 at 89 ng/ml and THC-9 at 559 ng/ml. Appellant’s subsequent

14 August 2023 urine sample tested positive for THC-8 at a

higher level of 1653 ng/ml and lower for THC-9 at 122 ng/ml as

indicated by the arrows. An up arrow indicates a higher level

than Appellant’s previous test and a down arrow indicates a

lower level from Appellant’s previous test

6a

one specification of failure to obey a lawful general

regulation by wrongfully using THC-8 on divers

occasions in violation of Article 92, UCMJ, and one

specification of wrongfully using a Schedule I

controlled substance, THC-9, on divers occasions, in

violation of Articles 112a, UCMJ, carried a maximum

punishment of a dismissal, confinement for seven

years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, a fine, and

a reprimand.

Prior to his trial, Appellant spent 161 days in

pretrial confinement and entered into a negotiated

plea agreement, voluntarily pleading guilty to the

charges and specifications above and accepting “a

dismissal shall be adjudged,” in exchange for the

guarantee that no additional confinement would be

adjudged and that two additional charges which

carried the potential for an additional 14 years of

confinement would be dismissed with prejudice upon

announcement of sentence.3 “I offer to plead guilty”—

Appellant stated in his plea agreement—“because it

will be in my best interest in accordance with the

conditions stated herein.” One condition therein was

“a dismissal shall be adjudged.”

At trial, the military judge discussed the impact of

a dismissal with Appellant, ensured he had discussed

3 While in pretrial confinement, additional misconduct came to

light which led to the two additional charges of two specifications

each: Specifications 1 and 2 of Additional Charge I for violating

a general regulation by possessing THC-8 and delta-10tetrahydrocannabinol (THC-10), in violation of Article 92,

UCMJ; and, Specifications 1 and 2 of Additional Charge II for

possessing THC-9 and Hexahydrocannabinoid (HHC), controlled

substances, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. These additional

charges and specifications were withdrawn and dismissed

pursuant to the plea agreement.

7a

the dismissal with his trial defense counsel, and asked

Appellant, “Knowing what I and your defense counsel

have explained to you, is it your expressed desire to be

discharged with a dismissal?” “Yes, ma’am,” said

Appellant. “Okay”—the judge continued—“And do you

consent to your defense counsel stating in argument

that you desire to be discharged with a dismissal if it

precludes any additional punishment in accordance

with the terms of your plea agreement?” “Yes, ma’am,”

said Appellant.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Sentence Severity

1. Law

This

court

reviews

issues

of

sentence

appropriateness de novo. See United States v.

McAlhaney, 83 M.J. 164, 166 (C.A.A.F. 2023) (citing

United States v. Lane, 64 M.J. 1, 2 (C.A.A.F. 2006)).

“Congress has dictated that the service [Courts of

Criminal Appeals] ‘may affirm only . . . the sentence

or such part or amount of the sentence, as the Court

finds correct in law and fact and determines, on the

basis of the entire record should be approved.’” United

States v. Arroyo, __ M.J. __, No. 24-0212, 2025 CAAF

LEXIS 688, at *8 (C.A.A.F. 19 Aug. 2025) (citing

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) (citation omitted).

8a

“An accused's own sentence proposal is a

reasonable indication of the sentence’s probable

fairness to the accused.” Arroyo, 2025 CAAF LEXIS

688, at *2. “Accordingly, [we] may—to ascertain the

fairness and thus the appropriateness of an adjudged

sentence—consider the context in which the parties

reached the plea agreement, including the benefits

from that agreement to the accused.” Id.

Recognizing the benefits an appellant received as

part of a plea agreement is “entirely proper as part of

[this court’s] de novo determination of whether the

punishment dictated by the plea agreement and

imposed by the military judge was appropriate.” Id. at

*12.

“Credit for pretrial confinement is applied to

confinement adjudged.” United States v. Smith, 54

M.J. 783, 787 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2001). “Neither

Allen nor [Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.)] 305(k)

creates a right to receive credit against any other

portion of an adjudged sentence other than post-trial

confinement.” Id. at 788 (referring to United States v

Allen, 17 M.J. 126 (C.M.A. 1984)).

Although the Courts of Criminal Appeals are

empowered to “do justice” we are not authorized to

grant mercy. United States v. Guinn, 81 M.J. 195, 203

(C.A.A.F. 2021) (citation omitted). In the end, “[t]he

purpose of Article 66[ ], UCMJ, is to ensure ‘that

justice is done and that the accused gets the

punishment he deserves.’” United States v. Sanchez,

50 M.J. 506, 512 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 1999) (quoting

United States v. Healy, 26 M.J. 394, 395 (C.M.A.

1988)).

9a

2. Analysis

Appellant asserts the sentence of a dismissal,

which he requested in his plea agreement, is

inappropriately severe for two reasons. First,

Appellant asserts THC use, purportedly not a felony

offense in civilian jurisdictions, demonstrates the

offense is not severe enough to warrant a dismissal.

Second, Appellant asserts he was “effectively

punished” by the 161 days in pretrial confinement

which renders the dismissal too severe. For both these

reasons, Appellant now invites us to find the dismissal

which he bargained for inappropriately severe. We

decline the invitation. The sentence is appropriate.

Based on his guilty pleas alone, Appellant faced a

potential punishment of up to a dismissal,

confinement for seven years, forfeitures of all pay and

allowances, and a fine. Appellant only received a

dismissal as required by his plea agreement.

The nature of Appellant’s drug use, purportedly

not a felony offense in civilian jurisdictions, does not

render his sentence inappropriately severe. We find

the repeated use of THC-8 and THC-9 after his first

positive urinalysis, despite corrective action taken by

the 15th Air Force Deputy Commander, which then

continued until he was placed in pretrial confinement,

to be notable. Appellant faced seven years

confinement—a significant amount of time— and

“[r]egardless of the maximum punishment specified

for an offense . . . , a dismissal may be adjudged for

any offense of which a commissioned officer . . . has

been found guilty.” See R.C.M. 1003(b)(8)(A).

Appellant’s claim that his pretrial confinement

time, 161 days, renders his sentence, a dismissal, too

severe,

is

similarly

unpersuasive.

Pretrial

10a

confinement is not punishment, not a part of the

sentence, and is not credited against a dismissal. See

generally R.C.M. 304(f) and R.C.M. 305(k). Although

the Courts of Criminal Appeals are empowered to “do

justice” we are not authorized to grant mercy. See

Guinn, 81 M.J. at 203. Appellant received no adjudged

confinement to which credit could be applied. See

Smith, 54 M.J. at 787. “[N]either Allen nor R.C.M.

305(k) creates a right to receive credit against any

other portion of an adjudged sentence other than posttrial confinement.” Id. at 788. In considering the

pretrial confinement as part of our review of the entire

record and as potential mitigation rather than credit

against a dismissal, we note Appellant’s father

testified, “I know he has received some help and

assistance there.” Further, trial defense counsel put

the confinement report in evidence as Defense Exhibit

B, and used it to argue that Appellant was a model

confinee during sentencing. Thus, the record does not

reflect negative aspects of Appellant’s pretrial

confinement that would incline this court to disturb

the dismissal adjudged.

Appellant’s brief military record does not provide

any substantial mitigation for his conduct. Appellant

had no officer performance reports and his single

decoration was the Air and Space Training ribbon. His

commander testified that Appellant’s drug use

prevented him from meaningfully contributing to the

mission. Further, Appellant was only at Seymour

Johnson AFB for four months and he began testing

positive for THC-8 and THC-9 at varying levels upon

arrival and continued testing positive each and every

month; that is, seven THC-8 positives and seven THC9 positives in four months.

11a

Finally, in considering whether the sentence was

appropriate, we considered the fact that Appellant

bargained for this exact sentence in his plea

agreement and benefited from a guarantee he would

serve no additional confinement.

We have carefully considered Appellant, the

nature and seriousness of the offenses, Appellant’s

record of service, and all matters contained in the

record of trial. See Sauk, 74 M.J. at 606. The dismissal

is appropriate.

B. Post-Trial Delay

1. Additional Background

The military judge sentenced Appellant on 26

March 2024 and entered the judgment on 22 April

2024. The record of trial was docketed with this court

on 5 September 2024, 163 days after announcement of

the sentence.

In response to Appellant’s assignment of error for

post-trial delay, Appellee moved to attach, unopposed,

chronologies from the case paralegal and a paralegal

at the legal office for the general court-martial

convening authority (GCMCA) providing details as to

the processing of the record of trial. We granted the

motion to attach and consider it here. See United

States v. Jessie, 79 M.J. 437, 445 (C.A.A.F. 2020).

2. Law

“[C]onvicted servicemembers have a due process

right to timely review and appeal of courts-martial

convictions.” United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129,

135 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (citations omitted). In Moreno, the

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

(CAAF) established a presumption of facially

unreasonable delay “where the action of the convening

12a

authority is not taken within 120 days of the

completion of trial, . . . where the record of trial is not

docketed by the [Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA)]

within thirty days of the convening authority’s

action,” or “where appellate review is not completed

and a decision is not rendered within eighteen months

of docketing the case before the [CCA].” 63 M.J. at 142.

In Livak, this court adapted the Moreno standard for

cases referred to trial on or after 1 January 2019 and

established an aggregated 150-day standard for

facially unreasonable delay from sentencing to

docketing with the CCA. 80 M.J. at 633.

Where there is a facially unreasonable delay, we

examine the four factors set forth in Barker v. Wingo,

407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972): “(1) the length of the delay;

(2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the appellant’s

assertion of the right to timely review and appeal; and

(4) prejudice [to the appellant].” Moreno, 63 M.J. at

135 (citations omitted). The CAAF identified three

types of cognizable prejudice for purposes of the right

to timely post-trial review: (1) oppressive

incarceration; (2) “particularized” anxiety and concern

“that is distinguishable from the normal anxiety

experienced by prisoners awaiting an appellate

decision;” and (3) impairment of the appellant’s

grounds for appeal or ability to present a defense at a

rehearing. Id. at 138–40 (citations omitted). Where

there is no qualifying prejudice from the delay, there

is no due process violation unless the delay is so

egregious as to “adversely affect the public’s

perception of the fairness and integrity of the military

justice system.” United States v. Toohey, 63 M.J. 353,

362 (C.A.A.F. 2006). We review de novo an appellant’s

entitlement to relief for post-trial delay. Livak, 80

M.J. at 633 (citing Moreno, 63 M.J. at 135).

13a

3. Analysis

The record of trial was docketed with this court 163

days after sentencing, exceeding the 150-day Livak

standard for facially unreasonable delay by 13 days.

Therefore, there is a facially unreasonable delay.

Accordingly, we have considered the Barker

factors and, under the circumstances of this case, we

find no violation of Appellant’s due process rights.

First, we consider the length of the delay, 13 days,

which is some delay and weighs in favor of Appellant.

Second, we consider the reasons for the delay. It

took 23 days for the legal office of the special courtmartial convening authority (SPCMCA) to obtain

Appellant’s receipt for the record of trial (ROT). Once

the legal office received the receipt, they assembled

the record of trial and sent it to the GCMCA legal

office for review the next day. The GCMCA legal office

was “undermanned” and in the process of turnover of

personnel when the record arrived at its office. As a

result, a newly-arrived paralegal in his second week

at work, began his review of the record 30 days after

receipt of the ROT. The GCMCA legal office then

requested missing documents and the SPCMCA legal

office provided the missing documents in six days.

Even with these coordination delays, the GCMCA

legal office was able to mail the record of trial to the

Air Force Appellate Records Branch (JAJM) on 2

August 2024, which was day 129. The record does not

reflect what caused the additional delay once the

record reached JAJM. These reasons for delay weigh

slightly in favor of Appellant.

Third, we consider whether Appellant demanded

speedy appellate review before this court. Here,

Appellant did not. Further, notably, Appellate

14a

requested seven enlargements of time, which were

granted, in order to file his brief. This factor does not

favor Appellant.

Fourth, Appellant has not alleged cognizable

prejudice from the delay. We do not perceive any

particularized anxiety or concern Appellant

experienced from the delay. Appellant did not suffer

from oppressive incarceration. In fact, the court

adjudged no confinement in this case and the only

punishment adjudged, a dismissal, is not executed

until the completion of appellate review. See R.C.M.

1102(4)(A). This factor does not favor Appellant.

Accordingly, we do not find Appellant has suffered any

prejudice for purposes of Livak. Absent prejudice, we

find the post-trial delay involved in Appellant’s case

has not been so egregious as to adversely affect the

perception of the military justice system. See Toohey,

63 M.J. at 362. Furthermore, recognizing our

authority under Article 66(d)(2), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §

866(d)(2), we considered whether relief for excessive

post-trial delay is appropriate in this case even in the

absence of a due process violation. See United States

v. Valentin-Andino, 85 M.J. 361, 366 n.4 (C.A.A.F.

2025). We conclude such relief is not warranted.

III. CONCLUSION

The findings are correct in law. Article 66(d),

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d) (Manual for

Courts-Martial, United States (2024 ed.)). In addition,

the sentence is 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

the sentence are AFFIRMED.

15a

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE

Clerk of the Court

16a

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

IN THE CASE OF

United States v. Second Lieutenant Parker C. Myslow

Date: 22 April 2024

Sentence/Acquittal

Date: 26 March 2024

Name of Accused: Grade: O-1

Parker C. Myslow

SSN:

[Redacted]

Organization: 4th Communications Squadron,

Seymour Johnson AFB, NC (ACC)

Convening Command: 15th Air Force, Shaw AFB,

NC (ACC)

Court-Martial Type: General Court-Martial

Sentencing Forum:

Military Judge

Enlisted Members: N/A

Findings and Sentence (as modified by the convening

authority action or other court ruling, if any):

Charge(s)

CHARGE I

Arraigned

Offense(s)

Art. 92

P

F

G

G

Spec: 092-A0 Did, at or near the G

continental United

States, on divers

occasions, between

on or about 1

August 2023 and on

or about 6 October

2023,

violate a

lawful

general

G

17a

regulation, which

was his duty to

obey,

to

wit:

Department of the

Air Force Manual

44-197, paragraph

1.2.2.1, dated 23

September

2022,

and Department of

the

Air

Force

Manual

44-197,

paragraph 1.2.2.1,

dated 5 September

2023, by wrongfully

using

delta-8tetrahydrocannabi

nol.

CHARGE II

Art. 112a

G

G

Spec:

112AC1

Did, at or near the G

continental United

States, on divers

occasions, between

on or about 1

August 2023 and on

or about 6 October

2023,

wrongfully

use

delta-9tetrahydrocannabi

nol, a Schedule I

controlled

substance.

G

18a

ADDITION

AL

CHARGE I:

N

G

Withdra

wn and

dismissed

with

prejudice

Spec : 1 092- Did, at or near N

A-4

Goldsboro,

North G

Carolina, between

on or about 13 July

2023 and on or

about 13 December

2023,

violate a

lawful

general

regulation, which

was his duty to

obey,

to

wit:

Department of the

Air Force Manual

44-197, paragraph

1.2.2.1, dated 23

September

2022,

and Department of

the

Air

Force

Manual

44-197,

paragraph 1.2.2.1,

dated 5 September

2023, by wrongfully

using

delta-8tetrahydrocannabi

nol.

Withdra

wn and

dismissed

with

prejudice

Spec: 2

Withdra

wn and

dismissed

092-A4

Art. 92

Did, at or near N

Goldsboro,

North G

Carolina, between

on or about 13 July

2023 and on or

19a

about 13 December

2023,

violate a

lawful

general

regulation, which

was his duty to

obey,

to

wit:

Department of the

Air Force Manual

44-197, paragraph

1.2.2.1, dated 23

September

2022,

and Department of

the

Air

Force

Manual

44-197,

paragraph 1.2.2.1,

dated 5 September

2023, by wrongfully

using

delta-10tetrahydrocannabi

nol.

ADDITION Art. 112a

AL

CHARGE II:

Spec: 1

112AA1

with

prejudice

N

G

Withdra

wn and

dismissed

with

prejudice

Did, at or near N

Goldsboro,

North G

Carolina, between

on or about 13 July

2023 and on or

about 13 December

2023,

wrongfully

possess

some

amount of delta-9tetrahydrocannabi

Withdra

wn and

dismissed

with

prejudice

20a

nol, a Schedule I

controlled

substance.

Spec: 2

Did, at or near N

Goldsboro,

North G

Carolina, between

on or about 13 July

2023 and on or

about 13 December

2023,

wrongfully

possess

some

amount

of

Hexahydrocannabi

nol, a Schedule I

controlled

substance.

112AA1

Withdra

wn and

dismissed

with

prejudice

Confinement

Term

Total

N/A

Fine

Concurrent

with

Consecutive

with

Confinement: Total Fine: N/A

Days

of

Pretrial Days of Judicially

Confinement Credit: Ordered Credit: N/A

161 days

Punitive

Dismissal

Discharge: Reduction

Grade: N/A

in

Forfeitures of Pay and/or Allowances: N/A

Pay

21a

Hard Labor without Restriction: N/A

Confinement: N/A

Deferments: N/A

Waiver of Automatic Forfeitures: N/A

Convening Authority Action on Military

Judge Suspension Recommendation: N/A

Reprimand: N/A

This judgment reflects the result of the courtmartial, as modified by any post-trial actions,

rulings, or orders, if any, and is hereby

entered into the record on (date).

PILAR G. WENNRICH, Lt Col, USAF

Military Judge

Attachments:

1. Statement of Trial Results, 3 pages, dated 26

March 2024

22a

1st Ind., Entry of Judgment, Parker C. Myslow, dated

22 April 2024.

FROM: 4 FW/JA

MEMORANDUM

AUTHORITIES

22 April 2024

FOR:

ALL

REVIEWING

The following criminal indexing is required, following

Entry of Judgment, according to the references listed:

DNA Processing Required Under 10 U.S.C. § 1565 and

DoDI 5505.14: Yes.

Firearm Prohibition Triggered Under 18 U.S.C. § 922:

Yes.

Domestic Violence Conviction Under 18 U.S.C. §

922(g)(9): Yes.

Sex Offender Notification in accordance with DoDI

1325.07: No.

Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition in accordance

with DoDI 5505.11: Yes.

NATHAN H. MAYENSCHEN, Lt Col, USAF

Staff Judge Advocate

Distribution:

1 – Lt Col Pilar G. Wennrich (MJ), 182 Thornell Ave,

Bldg 566, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, VA 23665

23a

1 – Mr. Dustin Orlowski, 182 Thornell Ave, Bldg 566,

Joint Base Langley-Eustis, VA 23665

1 – Maj Carlos Ruiz (TC), 1600 Wright Brothers Ave,

Ste 265, SJAFB, NC 27541

1 – Capt Matthew Yelverton (TC), 1600 Wright

Brothers Ave, Ste 265, SJAFB, NC 27531

1 – Capt Heather Stallings (DC), 1195 Cannon Ave,

SJAFB NC 27531

1 – Mr. Eric Kopka (DC), 825 Gum Branch Road, Suite

117, Jacksonville, NC 28540

1 – Maj Joshua m. Gminski (4 CS/CC), 1195 Jabara

Ave, SJAFB, NC 27534

1 – Lt Col Nathan H. Mayenschein (4 FW/SJA), 1600

Wright Brothers Ave, Ste 265, SJAFB, NC 27531

1 – Colonel Allan S. Brock (15 AF/SJA), 524 Shaw

Drive, Ste 274, Bldg 1130, Shaw AFB, SC 29152

1 – 4 CPTS/FMF, 1600 Wright Brothers Ave, Ste 265,

SJAFB, NC 27531

1 – 4 FSS/FSMPM, 1600 Wright Brothers Ave, Ste

265, SJAFB, NC 27531

*1 – CW2 Christopher C. Neuendorff, MCI East

Regional Brig, Mulberry St, Camp Lejuene, NC 28542

1 – AFOSI/Det 216, 1100 Guardian Rd, SJAFB, NC

24531

1 – AFOSI/XRG, 27130 Telegraph Rd, Quantico, VA

22314

1 – 4 SFS/CC, 1010 Vermont Garrison Ave, SJAFB,

NC 27531

1 – 4 SFS/S21, 1010 Vermont Garrison Ave, SJAFB,

NC 27531

1 – 4 SFS/S5, 1010 Vermont Garrison Ave, SJAFB,

NC 27531

*1 – HQ AFSFC/FC, 1517 Billy Mitchell Blvd, Bldg

954, JBSA-Lackland, TX 78236

1 – AF/JAT, Clerk of Court, 1500 W. Perimeter Road,

Ste 1130, JB Andrews NAF Washington, MD 20762

24a

*7 – AF/JAM, 1500 W. Perimeter Road, Ste 1150, JB

Andrews NAF Washington, MD 20762

1 – HQ AFPC/DPMSSM (DEERS), 550 C St West,

JBSA-Randolph, TX 78150

1 – HQ AFPC/DP10RM (ARMS), 550 C St West, Ste

21, JBSA-Randolph, TX 78150

1 – DOD/AFPC, Attn: Air Force Mil Pay, 8899 E. 56th

St, Indianapolis, IN 46349

1 DSCA CAS, 600 10th St, Ste 360, Fort Meade, MD

20755

1 – U.S. Army Criminal Investigations Laboratory,

ATTN: CODIS Lab, 4930 N. 31st St, Forest Park, GA

30297

*Recipients of unexpurgated STR.

25a

BY ORDER OF THE

SECRETARY OF THE

AIR FORCE

DEPARTMENT OF

THE AIR FORCE

INSTRUCTION 51-201

24 January 2024

LAW

ADMINISTRATION

OF MILITARY

JUSTICE

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS

MANDATORY

ACCESSIBILITY:

Publications and forms are

available on the e-Publishing

website

at

www.ePublishing.af.mil

for

downloading or ordering.

RELEASABILITY:

There are no releasability

restrictions on this publication.

OPR: AF/JAJM

Supersedes: DAFI 51201_DAFGM2023-01, 28

September 2023

Certified by: AF/JAJ

(Brig Gen Gail E.

Crawford)

Pages: 264

26a

Section 20I—EoJ (R.C.M. 1111; Article 60c,

UCMJ)

20.39. General Provision. The EoJ reflects the

results of the court-martial after all post-trial actions,

rulings, or orders, and serves to terminate trial

proceedings and initiate appellate proceedings. The

EoJ must be completed in all GCMs and SPCMs in

which an accused was arraigned, regardless of the

final outcome of the case. For post-trial processing in

an SCM, see Section 23F. In any case in which an

accused was arraigned and the court-martial ended in

a full acquittal, mistrial, dismissal of all charges, or is

otherwise terminated without findings (to include

discharge in lieu of court-martial), an EoJ must be

completed (to include the first indorsement) when the

court terminates. For cases resulting in a finding of

not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility,

the EoJ must be completed after the subsequent

hearing required by R.C.M. 1111(e)(1) and R.C.M.

1105.

20.40. Preparing the EoJ.

20.40.1. Minimum Contents. Following receipt of

the CADAM and issuance of any other post-trial

rulings or orders, the military judge must ensure an

EoJ is prepared. (T-0) Military judges should wait five

days after receipt of the CADAM to sign the EoJ. This

ensures parties have five days to motion the military

judge to correct an error in the CADAM in accordance

with R.C.M. 1104(b)(2)(B). The EoJ must include the

contents listed in R.C.M. 1111(b), and the STR must

be included as an attachment. (T-0) Practitioners

must use the format and checklists for the EoJ that is

posted on the VMJD and AF/JAJM Teams page.

27a

20.40.2. Expurgated and Unexpurgated Copies of

the EoJ. In cases with both an expurgated and

unexpurgated Statement of Trial Results, both an

expurgated an unexpurgated EoJ must be prepared

and signed by the military judge. In arraigned cases

in which the court-martial ended in a full acquittal,

mistrial, dismissal of all charges, or is otherwise

terminated without findings, refer to paragraph

20.8 to determine whether an expurgated EoJ is

required and the distribution requirements for

expurgated and unexpurgated copies.

20.41. First Indorsement to the EoJ. After the EoJ

is signed by the military judge and returned to the

servicing legal office, the SJA signs and attaches to

the EoJ a first indorsement, indicating whether the

following criteria are met: DNA processing is

required; the accused has been convicted of a crime of

domestic violence under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9);

criminal history record indexing is required under

DoDI 5505.11; firearm prohibitions are triggered;

and/or sex offender notification is required. See

Chapter 29 for further information on this

requirement. Templates are located on the VMJD and

AF/JAJM Teams page. The first indorsement is

distributed with the EoJ. Note: This requirement is

not delegable. Only the SJA or other judge advocate

acting as the SJA may sign the first indorsement. In

the latter case, the person signing the first

indorsement indicates “Acting as the Staff Judge

Advocate” in the signature block.

20.42. Distributing the EoJ. The EoJ and first

indorsement must be distributed in accordance with

the STR/EoJ Distribution List on the VMJD and

AF/JAJM Teams page within five duty days of

completion.

28a

....

SECTION 21C—Correcting THE EOJ

21.7. Contents of the EoJ. The template EoJ form

contains data required by R.C.M. 1111(b) and

additional information required by policy. This

additional information includes SSNs, rank, and other

administrative data that is used to identify the

member and carry out various personnel and

administrative functions.

21.8. Errors Identified in the EoJ. Errors

identified in the EoJ may only be corrected in

accordance with R.C.M. 1111(c) and 1112(d). (T-0) If

such errors are not corrected or are outside the scope

of R.C.M. 1111(c), the errors may render the ROT

defective.

21.8.1. The military judge who entered a judgment

may issue a modified EoJ to correct any errors prior to

certification of the record under R.C.M. 1112 in

accordance with R.C.M. 1111(c).

21.9. After Certification of the Record.

21.9.1. The detailed military judge may make

modifications to the EoJ consistent with the purposes

of the remand.

21.9.2. TJAG, the Chief Trial Judge, the AFCCA,

and the CAAF may also modify a judgment in the

performance of their duties and responsibilities in

accordance with R.C.M. 1111(c)(2).

21.10. First Indorsement. The SJA may make

corrections to the first indorsement at any time.

Corrections require redistribution of the EOJ and first

indorsement in accordance with Section 21D.

....

29a

Section 29D—POSSESSION OR PURCHASE OF

FIREARMS PROHIBITED (18 U.S.C. §§ 921-922,

DEFINITIONS; UNLAWFUL ACTS; 27 C.F.R. § 478.11)

29.29. General Provision. The National Instant

Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is a

nationwide database of persons who are prohibited

from shipping, transporting, receiving, and possessing

firearms, ammunition, and explosives, in or affecting

interstate or foreign commerce, under 18 U.S.C.

§922(g) and (n).

29.29.1. 18 U.S.C. §925(a)(1), Exceptions: Relief

from Disabilities, allows persons prohibited under 18

U.S.C. §§922(g) and (n), except for those convicted of

misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence who are

subject to the prohibition of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(9), to

transport, ship, receive, and possess governmentowned firearms, ammunition, and explosives for

official government business.

29.29.2. In accordance with DoDI 6400.06,

Domestic Abuse Involving DoD Military and Certain

Affiliated Personnel, Section 9, persons convicted of

felony crimes of domestic violence (i.e., those crimes

punishable by more than one year confinement, tried

by a general or special court-martial, which otherwise

meet the definition of a misdemeanor crime of

domestic violence), are also prohibited from

transporting, shipping, receiving, and possessing

government-owned firearms, ammunition, and

explosives for official government business.

29.29.3. In accordance with DoDI 6400.06, Section

9, personnel with a qualifying conviction for a crime of

misdemeanor or felony domestic violence are not

prohibited from working with: (1) major military

30a

weapons systems; or (2) crew-served military weapons

and ammunition (e.g., tanks, missiles, and aircraft).

29.30. Categories of Prohibition. 18 U.S.C.

§§922(g) and (n) detail ten categories that prohibit

persons from shipping, transporting, receiving, or

possessing firearms, ammunition, and explosives, in

or affecting interstate or foreign commerce. See 18

U.S.C. §§922(g) and (n), 27 C.F.R. §478.11, and

AFMAN 71-102, Chapter 4. The categories and their

criteria are set forth below.

29.30.1. Persons convicted of a crime punishable by

imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. See 18

U.S.C. §922(g)(1).

29.30.1.1. If a service member is convicted at a

GCM of a crime for which the maximum punishment

exceeds a period of one year, this prohibition is

triggered regardless of the term of confinement

adjudged or approved. Note: This category of

prohibition would not apply to convictions in a special

court-martial because confinement for more than one

year cannot be adjudged in that forum.

29.30.1.2. If a conviction is set aside,

disapproved or overturned on appeal, the prohibition

under this section is not triggered because the

conviction no longer exists. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

29.30.2. Fugitives from justice. 18 U.S.C. §

922(g)(2).

29.30.3. Unlawful users or persons addicted to any

controlled substance as defined in 21 U.S.C. § 802,

Definitions. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) and 27 C.F.R.

478.11.

29.30.3.1. This prohibition is triggered where a

person who uses a controlled substance has lost the

31a

power of self-control with reference to the use of a

controlled substance or where a person is a current

user of a controlled substance in a manner other than

as prescribed by a licensed physician. Such use is not

limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or

within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather

that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to

indicate that the individual is actively engaged in

such conduct. See 27 C.F.R. 478.11.

29.30.3.2. An inference of current use may be

drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a

controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession

that reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a

conviction for use or possession of a controlled

substance within the past year; multiple arrests for

such offenses within the past five years if the most

recent arrest occurred within the past year; or persons

found through a drug test to use a controlled

substance unlawfully, provided that the test was

administered within the past year. 27 C.F.R. 478.11.

29.30.3.3. For a current or former member of

the armed forces, an inference of current use may be

drawn

from

recent

disciplinary

or

other

administrative action based on confirmed drug use,

e.g., court-martial conviction, NJP, or an

administrative discharge based on drug use or drug

rehabilitation failure. 27 C.F.R. 478.11.

29.30.3.4. Qualifying Prohibitors. See AFMAN

71-102, Chapter 4, for additional information on drug

offenses and admissions that qualify for prohibition

under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).

29.30.4. Any person adjudicated as a mental

defective or who has been committed to a mental

institution.

32a

29.30.4.1. If a service member is found

incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of

lack of mental responsibility pursuant to Articles 50a

or 76b, UCMJ, this prohibition may be triggered. 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(4).

29.30.4.2. SJAs should ensure commanders are

aware of the requirement to notify DAF-CJIC when a

service member is declared mentally incompetent for

pay matters by an appointed military medical board.

See AFMAN 71-102, Chapter 4.

29.30.4.3. SJAs should ensure commanders are

aware of the requirement to notify installation law

enforcement in the event any of their personnel,

military or civilian, are committed to a mental health

institution through the formal commitment process.

For further information, see AFMAN 71-102; 18

U.S.C. § 922; 27 C.F.R. 478.11.

29.30.5. Persons who have been discharged from

the armed forces under dishonorable conditions. 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(6). This condition is memorialized on

the STR and EoJ, which must be distributed in

accordance with the STR/EoJ Distribution List on the

VMJD and AF/JAJM Teams page. Note: This

prohibition does not take effect until after the

discharge is executed, but no additional notification

must be made to the individual at that time. See

paragraph 29.33.2. The original notification via AF

Form 177, Notification of Qualification for Prohibition

of Firearms, Ammunition, and Explosives, and

subsequent service of the CFR or Final Order, as

applicable, operate as notice to the individual.

29.30.6. Persons who have renounced their United

States citizenship. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(7).

33a

29.30.7. Persons convicted of a crime of

misdemeanor domestic violence (the “Lautenberg

Amendment”) at a GCM or SPCM. See 18 U.S.C. §

922(g)(9). Note: Persons convicted of felony crimes of

domestic violence at a GCM or SPCM are covered

under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

29.30.7.1. A “misdemeanor crime of domestic

violence” for purposes of indexing under this section is

defined as follows: an offense that— (i) is a

misdemeanor under Federal, State, or Tribal law; and

(ii) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of

physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly

weapon, committed by a current or former spouse,

parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with

whom the victim shares a child in common, by a

person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with

the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, by a

person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or

guardian of the victim, or by a person who has a

current or recent former dating relationship with the

victim. Note: Exceptions to this definition can be

located at 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33). See also 27 C.F.R.

478.11.

29.30.7.2. SJAs should look at the underlying

elements of each conviction to determine whether it

triggers a prohibition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). If a

conviction is set aside, disapproved or overturned on

appeal, the prohibition under this section is not

triggered because the conviction no longer exists. The

term “qualifying conviction” does not include

summary courts-martial or the imposition of NJP

under Article 15, UCMJ.

29.30.7.3. Government counsel and law

enforcement must look at this prohibition on a case-

34a

by-case basis to ensure that the charged offense (e.g.,

violations of Articles 120, 120b, 128, 128b, 130,

UCMJ, etc.) meets the statutory criteria for a

“misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” See 10

U.S.C. § 1562, Database on domestic violence

incidents; DoDI 6400.07, Standards for Victim

Assistance Services in the Military Community.

29.30.8. Persons accused of any offense punishable

by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, which

has been referred to a GCM. 18 U.S.C. § 922(n).

29.30.9. Persons who are aliens admitted under a

nonimmigrant visa or who are unlawfully in the

United States. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5).

29.30.10. Persons subject to a protective order

issued by a court, provided the criteria in 18 U.S.C. §

922(g)(8) are met. This prohibition is triggered only by

a court order issued by a judge. A military protective

order does not trigger this prohibition; but does

trigger indexing under Section 29B.

29.31. Notification to the Accused of Firearms

Prohibition. When a service member becomes

ineligible to possess, purchase, or receive a firearm

under 18 U.S.C. § 922, the DAF provides notification

to that service member of the prohibition. See AFMAN

71-102, Chapter 4.

29.31.1. Form of Notice. A service member is

notified of the applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 922 via AF

Form 177.

29.31.2. SJA Responsibility to Notify. In all cases

investigated by DAF involving an offense which

implicates a firearms prohibition, the SJA should be

aware of the nature of the prohibition and the entity

responsible for making the notification. See AFMAN

35a

71-102, Table 4.1 and Chapter 4, generally. However,

in the following cases, the SJA is directly responsible

for ensuring the notification to the accused is made:

29.31.2.1. Conviction at a GCM of any offense

punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one

year. In such cases, the AF Form 177 must be provided

to the accused for completion as part of the post-trial

paperwork. Note: If this is a dual basis notification,

the paperwork need only be served once, though both

applicable prohibitions should be noted on the AF

Form 177.

29.31.2.2. Conviction at a GCM, SPCM, or SCM

for use or possession of a controlled substance. In such

cases, the AF Form 177 must be provided to the

accused for completion as part of the post-trial

paperwork. Note: If this is a dual basis notification,

the paperwork need only be served once, though both

applicable prohibitions should be noted on the AF

Form 177.

29.31.2.3. Completion of NJP for any person

found guilty of wrongful use or possession of a

controlled substance. In such cases, the AF Form 177

must be provided to the accused for signature on or

before completion of the supervisory SJA legal review.

29.31.2.4. After the accused is adjudicated as

not guilty by reason of insanity or not competent to

stand trial. In such cases, the AF Form 177 must be

provided to the accused for completion as part of the

post-trial paperwork.

29.31.2.5. Conviction resulting in a sentence

including a dishonorable discharge. In such cases, the

AF Form 177 must be provided to the accused for

completion as part of the post-trial paperwork. Note:

If this is a dual basis notification, the paperwork need

36a

only be served once, though both applicable

prohibitions should be noted on the AF Form 177.

29.31.2.6. Conviction at a GCM or SPCM for a

crime of domestic violence, when the maximum

punishment which may be adjudged for the offense in

that forum is one year or less. Note: If this is a dual

basis notification, the paperwork need only be served

once, though both applicable prohibitions should be

noted on the AF Form 177.

29.31.2.7. Referral of charges to a GCM where

any offense carries a possible sentence to confinement

in excess of one year. In such cases, the AF Form 177

must be provided to the accused for completion as part

of the referral paperwork.

29.31.3. In cases where the investigating law

enforcement agency is a non-DAF agency, these

requirements may not apply. Contact DAF-CJIC for

further guidance. See AFMAN 71-102.

29.31.4. Any notification made to the accused may

be made through the accused’s counsel in order to

secure the accused’s signature on required

documentation.

29.31.5. If the accused declines to sign, this should

be annotated on the form.

29.31.6. After completion of the form, the SJA must

provide the completed AF Form 177 to DAF-CJIC

within 24 hours of completion, in accordance with the

provisions of AFMAN 71-102. SJA will also provide a

digital copy to the member’s commander and

investigating DAF law enforcement.

29.32. STR and EoJ. In cases where specifications

allege offenses which trigger a prohibition under 18

U.S.C. § 922 and the accused is found guilty of one or

37a

more such offenses, the appropriate box must be

completed on the first indorsements to the STR and

EoJ by the SJA. Note: If the accused is convicted of a

crime of domestic violence as defined in paragraph

29.30.7.1 and 18. U.S.C. § 922, both the “Firearms

Prohibition” and “Domestic Violence Conviction”

blocks should be marked “yes.”

29.33. Final Disposition Requirement. As the

findings of a case may change after close of a courtmartial, final disposition of court-martial charges

must be forwarded to the local OSI detachment,

Security Forces, and DAF-CJIC to ensure reporting

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §922 is appropriately handled.

29.33.1. Because the EoJ may differ from the

adjudged findings and sentence, both the STR and

EoJ, with accompanying first indorsements, must be

distributed to the local responsible DAF investigative

agency and DAF-CJIC within three duty days of

completion of the EoJ. The SJA must ensure

disposition data requested by the local OSI

detachment and Security Forces unit is provided to

ensure timely and accurate inclusion of final

disposition data. See Section 29E for further

distribution guidance.

29.33.2. In cases where a CFR is created after

completion of appellate review, the CFR must be

distributed to the local responsible DAF investigative

agency and DAF-CJIC within three duty days of

completion. See Chapter 27.

29.34. SJA Coordination with Commanders. The

SJA or designee must inform commanders of the

impact of a conviction on the accused’s ability to

handle firearms or ammunition as part of their official

duties in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §925(a)(1) and

38a

DoDI 6400.06, Section 9; brief commanders on

retrieving all Government-issued firearms and

ammunition and suspending the member’s authority

to possess Government-issued firearms and

ammunition in the event a member is convicted of a

felony or misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in

accordance with 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) and (g)(9)

(violations of the Lautenberg Amendment); and brief

commanders on their limitations and abilities to

advise members of their commands to lawfully dispose

of their privately owned firearms and ammunition.

39a

BY ORDER OF THE

SECRETARY OF THE

AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE

MANUAL 71-102

21 July 2020

Special

Investigations

AIR FORCE

CRIMINAL INDEXING

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS

MANDATORY

ACCESSIBILITY:

Publications and forms are

available on the e-Publishing

website

at

www.ePublishing.af.mil

for

downloading or ordering.

RELEASABILITY:

There are no releasability

restrictions on this publication.

OPR: SAF/IGX

Certified by: SAF/IGX

(Colonel Christopher S.

Church)

Pages: 62

40a

Table

1.1.

Requirements.

Disposition

Documentation

Proceeding Before 1 After 1 Jan OPR

Jan 2019 2019

....

General and

special

courtmartial

(SPCM)

Report of

Results of

Trial

(RRoT)

Statement

SJA

of

Trial

Results

+

first

indorsement

General and

special

courtmartial

CourtMartial

Order

(CMO)

Entry

of SJA

Judgement

+

first

indorsement

....

Chapter 4

NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL

BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM (NICS)

4.1. NICS. NICS is a database system for the indexing

of persons with a qualifying prohibition for the

shipment, transportation, receipt and possession of

firearms and ammunition in or affecting interstate or

foreign commerce. The FBI maintains the NICS

system on behalf of the DOJ. The Brady Handgun

Violence Prevention Act of 1993 requires the reporting

of the categories below to the FBI for purposes of

prohibiting firearm purchases and possession. Refer

to Paragraph 4.4 for reporting procedures.

....

4.4.

Reporting

Qualifying

Prohibitions.

Reporting of persons qualifying for NICS prohibition

41a

is an immediate denial of the individual’s ability to

exercise his or her constitutional right to possess a

firearm. Due to the restrictions imposed by a NICS

entry, care must be taken to ensure an individual

meets the strict qualifications and supporting

documentation is available.

4.4.1. All requests and supporting documentation

for entry of persons with a qualifying prohibition into

NICS will be sent to the DAF-CJIC via email at

daf.cjic@us.af.mil. (T-1)

4.4.2. The following information is required for

reporting a prohibited person in NICS: full name (last,

first, middle); Social Security Number; date of birth

(YYYYMMDD format); Gender; Race; agency case

number. (T-0) These data points are documented on

the AF Form 177. Reference Section 4.6 of this

manual. See paragraphs 4.4.4 through paragraph

4.4.12 for additional requirements for each

prohibitive category.

4.4.3. Category 1: Persons who have been convicted

in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment

for a term exceeding one year (or a misdemeanor

crime punishable by imprisonment over two years)

will be indexed in accordance with paragraph 4.4.2

(T-0)

4.4.3.1. Requests for submission to NICS must be

accompanied by documentation in accordance with

Table 1.1, or civilian equivalent. Any actions taken

by the convening authority or as the result of

appellate review will be transmitted to DAF-CJIC in

accordance with paragraph 4.4.2 (T-1)

4.4.4. Category 2: Persons who are fugitives from

justice will be indexed in accordance

42a

with paragraph 4.4.2 (T-0)

4.4.4.1. Requests for submission to NICS must

be accompanied by a corresponding DD Form 553. (T1)

4.4.4.2. Requests for removal from NICS must

be accompanied by DD Form 616, Report of Return of

Absentee. (T-1)

4.4.5. Category 3: Persons who are unlawful users

of, or addicted to, any controlled substance will be

indexed in accordance with paragraph 4.4.2

Requests for submission to NICS under the substance

abuser prohibition must include the following for

subject: (T-0)

4.4.5.1. Date of qualifying action(s) (admission,

urinalysis, and/or possession date). (T-0)

4.4.5.2. One of the following supporting

documents:

4.4.5.2.1. A confirmation positive urinalysis

result using mass spectrometry. (T-0)

4.4.5.2.2. Positive drug identification lab

result. (T-0)

4.4.5.2.3. Agency case file documentation

reflecting drug identification in accordance with

paragraph 4.3.1.3.3.2 (T-0)

4.4.5.2.4. Agency case file documentation

reflecting admission to a law enforcement officer of

the use or possession of a controlled substance by

name, including street names and common

vernacular. (T-0)

4.4.5.3. Documentation in accordance with

Table 1.1 or civilian equivalent. Any actionstaken by

the convening authority or appellate review will be

43a

transmitted to DAF-CJIC

paragraph 4.4.2 (T-0)

in

accordance

with

4.4.5.3.1. In any case where administrative,

nonjudicial or judicial action was taken, supporting

documentation in accordance with Table 1.1, or

civilian equivalent, must be submitted. (T-0)

4.4.6. Category 4: Persons who have been

adjudicated as mental defectives or who have been

committed to a mental institution will be indexed in

accordance with paragraph 4.4.2 (T-0) Requests for

submission to NICS must be accompanied by

documentation in accordance with table 1.1 or

civilian equivalent. (T-1) Any actions taken by the

convening authority or as a result of appellate review

will be transmitted to DAF-CJIC in accordance with

paragraph 4.4.2 (T-1)

4.4.6.1. For instances when an individual is

involuntarily committed to a treatment facility, a

corresponding court order signed by a court-appointed

judge must be provided. (T-0)

4.4.6.2. For instances when a service member is

officially declared mentally incompetent for pay

matters, in accordance with AFMAN 65-116v1, para.

50.2, the pertinent documents specified in paras.

50.2.1 or 50.2.3 must be provided. The items in paras.

50.2.2 and 50.2.4 are not Air Force records. It is the

responsibility of the owning agencies to accomplish

those NICS entries; however, the SJA and commander

must still provide the member with AF Form 177 in

accordance with section 4.6.

4.4.7. Category 5: Persons who have been

discharged from the United States Armed Forces

44a

under dishonorable conditions or who have

received a dismissal will be indexed in accordance

with paragraph 4.4.2 (T-0)

4.4.7.1. Requests for submission to NICS must

be accompanied by a corresponding DD Form 214. (T1)

4.4.8. Category 6: Persons who, having been

citizens of the United States, have renounced their

U.S. citizenship will not be indexed by the AF because

NICS submissions under this prohibition are outside

the purview of the AF. (T-0) When referring these

matters to the appropriate civilian agency, follow that

agency’s specific guidance for the referral.

4.4.9. Category 7: Persons convicted in any court of

a MCDV will be indexed in accordance with

paragraph 4.4.2 (T-0)

4.4.9.1. Requests for submission to NICS under

the MCDV prohibition must include the following for

subjects (T-0):

4.4.9.1.1.

UCMJ

or

civilian

(federal/state/local) statute for which the individual

was convicted. (T-0)

4.4.9.1.2. Relationship between the victim

and the subject, if any of the following relationships

are indicated:

4.4.9.1.2.1. Subject is current or former

spouse of victim (can be same sex). (T-0)

4.4.9.1.2.2. Subject is parent/step-parent

of victim. (T-0)

4.4.9.1.2.3. Subject is guardian of victim.

(T-0)

45a

4.4.9.1.2.4. Subject has a child in

common with victim (child must be born). (T-0)

4.4.9.1.2.5. Subject is cohabiting or has

cohabited as spouse of victim (can be same sex). (T-0)

4.4.9.1.2.6. Subject is cohabiting or has

cohabited as parent of victim. (T-0)

4.4.9.1.2.7. Subject is cohabiting or has

cohabited as guardian of victim. (T-0)

4.4.9.1.2.8. Subject is similarly situated

to spouse of victim (can be same sex). (T-0)

4.4.9.1.2.9. Subject is similarly situated

to parent of victim. (T-0)

4.4.9.1.2.10. Subject is similarly situated

to guardian of victim. (T-0)

4.4.9.1.3. Requests for submission to NICS

must be accompanied by documentation in accordance

with Table 1.1, or civilian equivalent, and agency

case file documentation identifying the relationship.

(T-0) Any actions taken by the convening authority or

appellate review will be transmitted to DAF-CJIC in

accordance with paragraph 4.4.2 (T-1)

4.4.10. Category 8, Persons who are under

indictment or information for a crime punishable by

imprisonment for a term exceeding one year will be

indexed in accordance with paragraph 4.4.2 (T-0)

4.4.10.1. Requests for submission to NICS

under the indictment prohibition must include the

following for subjects:

4.4.10.1.1. Expected date of trial or date

charges were referred if the court date is unknown.

(T-0)

46a

4.4.10.1.2. Referred DD Form 458 or

equivalent

civilian

(federal/state/local)

court

documentation. (T-0)

4.4.11. Category 9: Persons who are an alien and

are illegally or unlawfully in the Unites States will not

be indexed by the AF because NICS submissions

under this prohibition are outside the purview of the

AF. (T-0) Follow agency specific guidance regarding

referral of these matters to the appropriate civilian

agency.

4.4.12. Category 10: Persons who are subject to

qualifying protection/restraining order (MPOs do not

qualify for this prohibition) will be indexed in

accordance with paragraph 4.4.2 (T-0)

4.4.12.1. Requests for submission to NICS

under the protection order prohibition must include a

signed CPO with expiration date. (T-0)

47a

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

IN THE CASE OF

United States v.

Date:

Sentence/Acquittal Date:

Name of Accused:

Grade:

SSN:

Organization:

Convening Command:

Court-Martial Type:

Sentencing Forum: Military Judge

Enlisted Members:

Findings and Sentence (as modified by the convening

authority action or other court ruling, if any):

Charge(s)

Arraigned Offenses

Confinement

Term

Concurrent

With

P

F

Fine

Consecutive With

Total Confinement:

Total Fine:

Days of Pretrial Confinement Credit:

Days of Judicially Ordered Credit:

Punitive Discharge:

Reduction in Pay Grade:

48a

Forfeitures of Pay and/or Allowances:

Hard Labor without Confinement:

Restriction:

Deferments:

Waiver of Automatic Forfeitures:

Convening Authority Action on Military Judge

Suspension Recommendation:

Reprimand:

This judgment reflects the result of the courtmartial, as modified by any post-trial actions,

rulings, or orders, if any, and is hereby entered

into the record on (date).

JANE T. DOE, Colonel, USAF

Military Judge

XX Attachments:

1. Statement of Trial Results, dated

2. Additional attachments as directed by the military

judge

49a

1st Ind., Entry of Judgment, Name and Rank of

Accused, dated XX XXX XX.

FROM: <<Staff Judge Advocate Office Symbol>>

DATE

MEMORANDUM

AUTHORITIES

FOR:

ALL

REVIEWING

The following criminal indexing is required, following

Entry of Judgment, according to the references listed:

DNA Processing Required Under 10 U.S.C. § 1565 and

DoDI 5505.14:

Firearm Prohibition Triggered Under 18 U.S.C. § 922:

Domestic Violence Conviction Under 18 U.S.C. §

922(g)(9):

Sex Offender Notification in accordance with DoDI

1325.07:

Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition in accordance

with DoDI 5505.11:

LAWYER A. PERSON, Colonel, USAF

Staff Judge Advocate

Distribution:

List All Required Parties