Case Information
*1 Before MAYBERRY, HARDING, and BROWN, Appellate Military Judges.
________________________
This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4. ________________________
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
United States v. King , No. ACM 39055
59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED . ∗
FOR THE COURT
KURT J. BRUBAKER
Clerk of the Court ∗ We note the Court-Martial Order (CMO) misstates the result of trial in two respects. First, the CMO incorrectly reflects Specifications 2 and 4 of Charge III as “ withdrawn and dismissed.” Those specifications were not withdrawn. Instead the military judge dismissed them pursuant to a Defense motion. Second, the CMO provides that Appel- lant was found guilty of Specification 3 of Charge III “except the words 01889855.jpg and 01218614.jpg” when in fact the finding was “except the figures 01889855.jpg and 01218614.jpg; of the excepted figures , not guilty.” (Emphasis added). We find no prej- udice, but to ensure the accuracy of court-martial records, we order promulgation of a corrected CMO.
2