U NITED S TATES A IR F ORCE
C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
________________________
No. ACM 39939 (f rev)
________________________
UNITED STATES
Appellee
v.
Paul J. GOLDMAN
Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
________________________
Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
Upon Further Review
Decided 7 August 2023
________________________
Military Judge: Charles G. Warren.
Sentence: Sentence adjudged 11 March 2020 by GCM convened at Barks-
dale Air Force Base, Louisiana. Sentence entered by military judge on
21 May 2020, and re-entered on 20 March 2022 and then on 9 September
2022: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 10 months, reduction to
E-1, and a reprimand.
For Appellant: Major Jenna M. Arroyo, USAF.
For Appellee: Major John P. Patera, USAF; Captain Olivia B. Hoff,
USAF; Captain Jocelyn Q. Wright, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire.
Before JOHNSON, ANNEXSTAD, and GRUEN, Appellate Military
Judges.
________________________
This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as
precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.
________________________
PER CURIAM:
Appellant’s case is before us for a third time. In accordance with Appellant’s
pleas and pursuant to a plea agreement, a general court-martial composed of
United States v. Goldman, No. ACM 39939 (f rev)
a military judge found Appellant guilty of two specifications of willfully diso-
beying a superior commissioned officer, one specification of failure to obey a
lawful general regulation, one specification of wrongful use of marijuana, three
specifications of assault consummated by a battery, two specifications of as-
sault consummated by a battery of a child, one specification of obstruction of
justice, one specification of wrongful extramarital sexual conduct, one specifi-
cation of child endangerment, and one specification of drunk and disorderly
conduct, in violation of Articles 90, 92, 112a, 128, 131b, and 134, Uniform Code
of Military Justice (UCMJ),
10 U.S.C. §§ 890, 892, 912a, 928, 931b, and 934. *
Upon our initial review, Appellant raised three assignments of error: (1)
whether the convening authority’s failure to unambiguously dismiss certain
charges and specifications with prejudice constituted noncompliance with a
material term of the plea agreement; (2) whether Appellant was entitled to
sentence relief because his record of trial is incomplete; and (3) whether Appel-
lant was entitled to appropriate relief as the convening authority failed to take
action on the sentence as required by law. United States v. Goldman, No. ACM
39939,
2022 CCA LEXIS 43, at *4 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 20 Jan. 2022) (unpub.
op.). This court remanded the record to the Chief Trial Judge, Air Force Trial
Judiciary, to address multiple errors with regard to the completeness of the
record and the post-trial process.
Id. at *17–18.
Appellant’s record was re-docketed with this court on 4 April 2022 with a
new convening authority decision on action and entry of judgment, among
other corrections. On 19 July 2022, after receiving one enlargement of time,
Appellant submitted the case to this court “on its merits with no specific as-
signments of error.” However, this court noted that several errors in the entry
of judgment identified in our prior opinion had not been corrected. On 30 Au-
gust 2022, this court again remanded the record to the Chief Trial Judge, Air
Force Trial Judiciary, for correction of the entry of judgment. United States v.
Goldman, No. ACM 39939 (f rev),
2022 CCA LEXIS 511 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App.
30 Aug. 2022) (order).
The record was again re-docketed with this court on 15 September 2022.
After requesting and receiving four enlargements of time, on 13 April 2023
Appellant again submitted the case to the court on its merits without further
assignment of error. We note the second corrected entry of judgment dated 9
September 2022 corrects the errors identified in our prior opinion and order.
* Unless otherwise noted, references to the UCMJ are to the Manual for Courts-Mar-
tial, United States (2019 ed.) (2019 MCM). As Appellant’s convicted offenses spanned
from 1 December 2015 to 6 September 2019, references to the punitive articles of the
UCMJ are to the 2019 MCM, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 ed.), and
Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2012 ed.).
2
United States v. Goldman, No. ACM 39939 (f rev)
The findings and sentence as entered are correct in law and fact, and we
find no remaining error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Ap-
pellant. Articles 59(a) and 66(d), UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d). Accord-
ingly, the findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT
CAROL K. JOYCE
Clerk of the Court
3
