## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_______ _______ __________ No. A CM 38929 ( rem )

_______ _______ __________ UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Sean C. MOONEY Senior Airman (E

- 4) , U.S. Air F orce, Appellant

________________________ Upon further review after remand from the United States Court of

Appeals for the Armed Forces

Dec ided 14 February 2019

_______ _______ __________ Military Judge: Francisco Mendez

. Approved sentence: Dishonorab le discharge, confinement for 2 years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to E

- 1 . Sentence adjudged 1 September 2015 by GCM convened at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware

. For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Anthony D. Ortiz , USAF. For Appellee: Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire.
Before HUYGEN
, MINK, and POSCH
, 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_______ _______ __________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

_______ _______ __________ PE R CURIAM : This case is before us after the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) reversed our previous decision and set aside the convening authority’s action

. United States v. Mooney , 77 M.J. 252 (C.A.A.F. 2018). The CAAF concluded that the action that ordered Appellant’s adjudged court

marti al sentence to run consecutive ly to his previously adjudicated federal sentence was void ab initio. The CAAF returned the record of trial t o T he JudgeUnited State s v. Mooney , No. ACM 38929 ( rem )

2 Advocate General of the Air Force for a new action by the same or a different

conv ening authority

. Id

. at 257. On 19 October 2018, the co nvening authority took action and approved a sentence of a dishonorable discharge, confinement for two years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade of E

- 1

. The case was returned to this c ourt and submitted for our review on its merits without assignment of error

. We find the action correctly omits the language directing Appellant’s military sentence to run consecutively with his previously imposed federal sentence

. The approved finding s and sentence are correct in law and fa ct, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant ’ s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66 , U niform C ode of M ilitary J ustice
, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866 . Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

. *

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court

* Although not raised by Appellant in the instant appeal , the addendum to the staff judge advocate’ s recommendation erroneously advised the convening authority that “[t]he defense does not allege any legal error.” In fac t, Appellant’s clemency request asserted that he wa s entitled to relief because he was confined with foreign nationals in violation of Article 12, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 812. Consequently, the staff judge advocate was obligated to state whether the convening authority should take corrective action. See Rule for Courts

- Martial 1106(d)(4). U nder the facts of this case we conclude th e error did not result in any prejudice to Appellant and thus we decline to grant reli ef

. See United States v. Mooney , 76 M.J. 545, 551 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2017) (denied Appellant relief for alleged violation of Article 12, UCMJ)

.