Name: Craig A. Bukowski
Case: United States v. Bukowski No. ACM 35743
Date Of Convicted: August 14, 2003
Plea: Guilty
Charges: possessing child pornography
Military Branch: U.S. Air Force
Listed In National Sex Offenders Registry? Yes, Pennsylvania
An Unofficial Site
Of
United States Military
Sexual Offender
Conviction Records
Not Associated With The U.S. Military Or Government
An Unofficial Site
Of United States Military
Sexual Offender
Conviction Records
Not Associated With The U.S. Military Or Government
Craig Allen Bukowski
Staff Sergeant U. S. Air Force
Convicted Sex Offender
Possession Of Child Pornography
Sentence adjudged 14 August 2003 by GCM convened at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas. Military Judge: Gregory E. Pavlik (sitting alone).
Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 20 months, and reduction to E-1.
The appellant was convicted, in accordance with his pleas, of one specification of desertion, in violation of Article 85, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §885. He was also convicted, contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of wrongful and knowing possession of visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 934.1 His approved sentence consists of a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 20 months, and reduction to E-1. On appeal, the appellant challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of his child pornography convictions and argues that the addendum to the staff judge advocate’s recommendation (SJAR) should have been served on him for comment. Finding no error, we affirm.
Both standards are met here. Law enforcement authorities seized tens of thousands of pornographic images and video files stored on compact disks in the appellant’s home, including hundreds of images and videos depicting minors engaged in a wide variety of sex acts. The sheer volume and nature of these materials, coupled with the appellant’s written and oral admissions that he sometimes liked “to view things that might otherwise be forbidden if not viewed by an artist,” that he found children aged 14-16 to be the most appealing “in an artistic view,” and that he personally believed age 16 would be “a good age” for children to pose for pornographic pictures, was sufficient to permit a reasonable factfinder to find all of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, after considering all of the evidence admitted at trial, we are ourselves convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt.
Service of Addendum to the SJAR
The appellant next contends that the addendum to the SJAR contained “new matters” under Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1106(f)(7) and should have been served on him for comment. We consider this question de novo to determine whether the addendum contains “new decisions on issues in the case, matter from outside the record of trial, [or] issues not previously discussed.” United States v. Key, 57 M.J. 246, 248 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (citing R.C.M. 1106(f)(7), Discussion).
The addendum suggests that the appellant should spend as much time “away from the source of his addiction” – the Internet, which the appellant described in his clemency submission as “true human nature on display” and to which the appellant admitted being addicted. The addendum goes on to assert that he contributed to the victimization of children, a point raised at trial by a prosecution witness and a fair counter to claims in the appellant’s clemency submission that he is “a generous person who puts other peoples’ needs before his own.” Finally, the addendum characterizes the appellant’s behavior as “despicable,” a characterization fairly and firmly based on the nature of the images themselves. Applying the standard set forth in Key, we find that none of the comments cited by the appellant amount to “new matters” requiring service of the addendum. See Key, 57 M.J. at 246.
