## UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before
TOZZI, LIND

, and CELTNIEKS Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v. Sergeant First Class ANSEL R. MANNING

United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20130142

Headquarters, 82 d Airborne Division

Kirsten V.C. Brunson , Military Judge

Lieutenant Colonel John N . Ohlweiler , Staff Judge Advocate

For Appellant: Colonel Kevin Boyle, JA; Major Robert N. Michaels , JA; Captain

Patrick J. Scudieri , JA (on brief)

.

For Appellee: Colonel John P. Carrell, JA; Major Daniel D. Derner , JA; Captain Janae M. Lepir , JA; Captain Carrie L. Ward

, JA (on brief).

6 January 201 5

- ------------------ -------------- SUMMARY DISPOSITION

---------------------------------

Per Curiam :

A military judge sitting as a general court

- martial convicted appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of two specifications of attempted sale of military property without proper authority , one specification of false official statement, eight specifications of selling military property without proper authority, three specifications of stealing military property, and one specification of knowingly receiving stolen property, in violation of Articles 80, 107, 108, 1 21, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 880, 907, 908, 921, 934 (2006)
[hereinafter UCMJ]. The military judge sentenced appellant to a bad

- conduct discharge, confinement for fifteen months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and

red uction to the grade of E

- 1. The convening authority approved thirteen months

confinement and the remainder of the sentence. 1

1 The convening authority deferred automatic and adjudged forfeitures until action.MANNING

— ARMY 20130142

2

This case is before us for review pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ. Appellant’s sole assignment of error warrants brief dis cussion and relief . Appellant’s personal submissions made pursuant to United States v. Grostefon , 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982) do not warrant relief. 2

Among many other offenses, appellant pl e a d ed guilty to stealing “greater than 10” rail adapter systems de signed for M4 carbines. The stipulation of fact in this

case states appellant wrongfully took more than ten rail adaptor systems by placing them in his personal items. However, during the providence inquiry, appellant stated that he only to ok ten rail ad aptor systems.

A guilty plea is not provident if there is “a substantial conflict between the plea and the accused’s statements or other evidence.” United States v. Garcia , 44
M.J. 496, 498 (C.A.A.F. 1996). In such a case, a military judge abuses his or her discretion by accepting the guilty plea without making further inquiries regarding

the conflict. See United States v. Watson , 71 M.J. 54, 58 (C.A.A.F. 2012). Here, the military judge did not resolve the inconsiste ncy as to how many rail adapter sys tems appellant stole . The government concedes that appellant providently pl e a d ed guilty to stealing ten rail adapter sys tems. Upon review of the providence inquiry , we accept the concession

.

CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of the entire record, this cou rt affirms only so much of Specification 4 of Charge IV as follows:

In that [appellant] U.S. Army, did, at or near FOB Sykes, Iraq, on or about 15 February 2010, steal 10 Knights Armament M4 Rail Adapter Systems, military property, of a value greater than $500, property of the United States.

The remaining findings of gu ilty are AFFIRMED. T he principles announced in

United States v. Winckelmann , 73 M.J. 11, 15

- 16 (C.A.A.F. 2013), weigh in favor of reassessing and affirming the sentence. In particular, the gravamen of appellant’s criminal conduct is unchanged and appella nt was sentenced by a military judge

alone. The sentence is AFFIRMED.

2 Appellant’s personal submissions note an error in the promulgatin g order, which

we will correct.MANNING

— ARMY 20130142

3 FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court FOR THE COURT: