United States v. Anderson, ACM 38959

Appellant, a married USAF lieutenant colonel on TDY in Thailand, admitted bringing a Thai civilian (SN) into government billeting in violation of a commander’s no-unauthorized-guest order and engaging in repeated sexual intercourse with her.
Appellant pleaded guilty at a general court-martial to willful disobedience of an order (Article 92) and adultery (Article 134); officer members sentenced him to a dismissal and a reprimand.
The convening authority approved the sentence; Appellant appealed raising four issues: improvident plea to adultery, improper admission of testimony at sentencing, sentence inappropriateness, and erroneous SJA post-trial advice regarding amended Article 60.
At the Care inquiry Appellant admitted facts showing his conduct was prejudicial to good order and service-discrediting (violated order, subordinates learned, impact on deployment and Embassy awareness).
SN testified at sentencing (through an interpreter) about sexual encounters including that she vomited and had sex while vomiting; defense objected; the military judge admitted the testimony as facts/circumstances of the offense.
The SJA initially advised the convening authority to consider FY14 NDAA Article 60 changes (which were inapplicable because offenses predated the effective date); later addenda acknowledged the law did not apply but maintained a recommendation to approve findings and sentence.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
1. Whether guilty plea to adultery was improvident	Plea improvident because judge used non-verbatim definitions and failed to elicit full factual basis	Military judge conducted adequate Care inquiry; appellant admitted facts supporting elements	Affirmed — no substantial basis to question plea; judge did not abuse discretion
2. Whether sentencing testimony (vomiting/sex) was improperly admitted	Testimony went beyond admitted facts, not proper victim‑impact, risked implying nonconsent	Testimony was facts and circumstances of the offense admissible under R.C.M. 1001(b)(4); judge performed 403 analysis	Affirmed — admission was within judge’s discretion
3. Whether dismissal was inappropriately severe	Dismissal excessive given appellant’s service and mitigation evidence	Officer violated order on deployment, conduct known to subordinates, jeopardized mission; sentence within maximum	Affirmed — dismissal not inappropriately severe; mitigation would be clemency not appellate action
4. Whether SJA erred by advising convening authority to consider inapplicable Article 60 changes	SJA’s advice applied post‑NDAA rules to pre‑effective‑date offenses; prejudiced clemency process	SJA later corrected advice; convening authority properly informed and considered matters; no colorable showing of prejudice	Affirmed — no prejudicial error; any potential error cured by addenda

United States v. Blouin, 74 M.J. 247 (C.A.A.F. 2015) (standard for reviewing acceptance of guilty pleas)
United States v. Inabinette, 66 M.J. 320 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (adequate factual basis required for plea)
United States v. Moon, 73 M.J. 382 (C.A.A.F. 2014) (test for substantial basis to question a plea)
United States v. Ediger, 68 M.J. 243 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (review standard for admission of sentencing evidence)
United States v. Gogas, 55 M.J. 521 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2001) (government may introduce facts and circumstances of offenses at sentencing)
United States v. Snelling, 14 M.J. 267 (C.M.A. 1982) (individualized consideration for sentence appropriateness)
United States v. Green, 44 M.J. 93 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (errors in SJAR do not automatically require return; test for prejudice)
United States v. Kho, 54 M.J. 63 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (standard for showing colorable prejudice from SJAR/SJA error)