PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no er- ror materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED .

We note, however, the Court-Martial Order (CMO) contains a typograph- ical error with regard to the word “punch” in Specification 2 of Charge III. The Appellant was charged with, pleaded to, and was found guilty of a specification of Article 128, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 928 in that he did unlawfully “push” his

United States v. Contreras, No. ACM 39007

spouse. The CMO incorrectly provides that he did unlawfully “punch” his spouse. We order promulgation of a corrected CMO to accurately reflect Spec- ification 2 of the Charge III.

We also note that immediately after the announcement of findings, the mil- itary judge declared a part of the announcement was erroneous in that he had not intended to enter findings of not guilty to Specification 5 of Charge I, Spec- ification 6 of Charge II, and Specifications 1 and 3 of the Additional Charge. ^[*] The military judge, however, did not make a new announcement of findings at any point subsequent to his declaration of a partial erroneous announcement. While it is abundantly clear from the record that the military judge merely misspoke as to the announced findings of not guilty to Specification 5 of Charge I, Specification 6 of Charge II, and Specifications 1 and 3 of the Additional Charge and that the findings were otherwise correctly announced, we find it the better practice to correct error in an announcement with a new announce- ment as is permitted by Rule for Courts-Martial 922(d).

FOR THE COURT

KURT J. BRUBAKER

Clerk of the Court

[*] The pretrial agreement in this case included a term whereby the convening authority agreed to withdraw and dismiss those specifications. Prior to the announcement of the findings, and in response to a question from the military judge during the pretrial agreement inquiry, the trial counsel indicated that action would be taken to withdraw and dismiss Specification 5 of Charge I, Specification 6 of Charge II, and Specifications 1 and 3 of the Additional Charge upon acceptance of Appellant’s guilty plea. The de- fense counsel agreed with this planned course of action. However, immediately after the acceptance of the guilty plea, the military judge directed Appellant and his counsel to rise and announced findings in accordance with not only the plea of guilty but also the pleas of not guilty to Specification 5 of Charge I, Specification 6 of Charge II, and Specifications 1 and 3 of the Additional Charge prior to trial counsel having the oppor- tunity withdraw and dismiss those specifications and inform the military judge of the same. The military judge immediately realized his error and permitted trial counsel to withdraw and dismiss the specifications without objection from Appellant. 2