United States v. Helm, ACM 38901

Appellant pleaded guilty at a judge-alone general court-martial to desertion, rape of a child, assault consummated by a battery (same child), and two specifications involving filming/broadcasting an adult's private area; sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, 25 years confinement, forfeitures, and reduction to E‑1.
All offenses occurred before 24 June 2014 (pre‑effective date of the FY14 NDAA amendment imposing a mandatory punitive discharge for child rape).
The SJAR erroneously advised the convening authority that a dishonorable discharge was mandatory for the Article 120b offense.
Defense clemency submission correctly stated no mandatory punitive discharge applied given the pre‑24 June 2014 dates and requested setting aside reduction in rank and forfeitures to aid dependents.
The SJAR addendum stated the defense raised no legal errors, failing to note the clemency assertion about the punitive‑discharge requirement.
The convening authority approved only the portions of the sentence including the dishonorable discharge, 25 years confinement, and reduction to E‑1, but waived automatic forfeitures for six months for dependents; he later submitted an affidavit saying he would have approved the dishonorable discharge even if properly advised.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether SJAR error (stating punitive discharge was mandatory) prejudiced Appellant	SJAR misled convening authority; prejudice because punitive discharge was not mandatory for pre‑24 June 2014 offenses	Error was plain but not prejudicial; convening authority would have approved same punishment regardless	Court held error was plain but Appellant failed to show colorable prejudice; findings and sentence affirmed
Whether omission in SJAR addendum (failing to note defense legal claim) prejudiced Appellant	Addendum wrongly said defense raised no legal errors, potentially prejudicing clemency review	Any omission can be litigated on appeal; here no prejudice shown because convening authority's affidavit demonstrates outcome unaffected	Court held omission did not cause prejudice; issue resolved against Appellant

Kho, 54 M.J. 63 (standard of review for post‑trial processing and prejudice threshold) (2000)
Scalo, 60 M.J. 435 (appellant must show some colorable showing of possible prejudice) (2004)
Sheffield, 60 M.J. 591 (de novo review of alleged post‑trial processing errors) (2004)
Johnson, 26 M.J. 686 (whether convening authority plausibly may have acted more favorably if provided correct information) (1988)
Hamilton, 47 M.J. 32 (failure to address defense legal error in SJAR addendum may be remedied on appeal) (1997)
Welker, 44 M.J. 85 (courts may consider prejudice from omitted matters in SJAR addendum) (1996)