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, 82d 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 2015

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

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 

reduction 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 discussion 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 pleaded guilty to stealing “greater than 

10” rail adapter systems designed 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 took ten rail adaptor 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 inconsistency as to how many rail adapter systems 

appellant stole. The government concedes that appellant providently pleaded guilty 

to stealing ten rail adapter systems. Upon review of the providence inquiry, we 

accept the concession.

CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of the entire record, this court 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 guilty are AFFIRMED. The 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 appellant 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: