United States v. Onyejiaka, 201600251

Appellant, a recruiter, engaged in multiple extramarital sexual relationships with prospective recruits and, on 29 June 2015, drove a government vehicle to steal a Plan B contraceptive for one recruit.
After being investigated, appellant asked two women to give false information to impede the inquiry.
On 25 March 2016 the appellant pled guilty at a special court-martial to multiple offenses including violating lawful orders, larceny, adultery, and impeding an investigation; sentence included reduction to E‑1, 60 days confinement, and a bad-conduct discharge (confinement in excess of 30 days deferred/suspended under a PTA).
During plea colloquy, when asked why he stole the Plan B, appellant said he “wasn’t really thinking” and it was an “instant of insanity.” He later made an unsworn statement accepting responsibility and saying he “lost [his] moral compass.”
Appellant claimed the military judge erred by not sua sponte explaining or inquiring into a lack-of-mental-responsibility defense after his “insanity” remark.
The convening authority approved the sentence; the CMO contained a minor clerical error about the precise timing of the deferred confinement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellant’s plea colloquy remarks triggered an obligation to inquire into lack of mental responsibility	Appellant: his statement about an “instant of insanity” and not “really thinking” raised an inconsistent matter requiring the judge to resolve competency/mental-responsibility concerns	Government: the remarks were colloquial, unsupported by any other evidence; appellant otherwise demonstrated knowing, voluntary plea and competency	Court: The remarks did not create a substantial basis to question the plea; no further inquiry required and plea acceptance was not an abuse of discretion
Whether a clerical error in the CMO prejudiced appellant	Appellant implied entitlement to accurate record	Government: error was harmless and did not prejudice substantial rights	Court: Error was harmless but ordered corrective amendment to the CMO

United States v. Shaw, 64 M.J. 460 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (military judge must resolve or reject plea when plea is inconsistent with facts or defenses)
United States v. Inabinette, 66 M.J. 320 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (guilty plea set aside when record shows substantial basis in law or fact to question the plea)
United States v. Garcia, 44 M.J. 496 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (interpretation of Article 45(a) requirement to resolve inconsistencies in plea inquiry)
United States v. Crumpley, 49 M.J. 538 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1998) (harmless error standard for court-martial order mistakes)