UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

K.J. BRUBAKER, M.C. HOLIFIELD, A.Y. MARKS

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ALEXANDER K. GREEN

SERGEANT (E-5), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 201400428

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 14 July 2014.

Military Judge: Col P.H. McConnell, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding General, 3d MAW, Marine 

Corps Air Station Miramar, San Diego, CA.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: Col D.K. Margolin, 

USMC.

For Appellant: Capt Michael B. Magee, USMC.

For Appellee: LCDR Keith B. Lofland, JAGC, USN; Maj Tracey 

L. Holtshirley, USMC.

11 August 2015

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

OPINION OF THE COURT 

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

THIS OPINION DOES NOT SERVE AS BINDING PRECEDENT, BUT MAY BE CITED AS 

PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY UNDER NMCCA RULE OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 18.2.

PER CURIAM:

A military judge sitting as a general court-martial 

convicted the appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of one 

specification each of willfully disobeying a lawful order of a 

superior commissioned officer, making a false official 

statement, committing an assault consummated by a battery, and 

endangering the welfare of a child through culpable negligence, 

and two specifications each of endeavoring to impede a trial by 
2

court-martial and committing adultery, in violation of Articles 

90, 107, 128, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 

U.S.C. §§ 890, 907, 928, and 934. The appellant was sentenced 

to confinement for 12 months and a bad-conduct discharge. As 

the terms of the pretrial agreement did not affect the sentence, 

the convening authority (CA) approved the sentence as adjudged 

and, except for the bad-conduct discharge, ordered it executed. 

In his sole assignment of error, the appellant contends 

that he was denied “legally correct post-trial processing” and 

asks that this court remand his case to the appropriate CA for 

proper post-trial processing. Specifically, the appellant avers 

that the second addendum to the staff judge advocate’s 

recommendation (SJAR) and the CA’s order erroneously reflect 

that he was found guilty of aggravated assault. While the 

appellant is correct that these two documents do not accurately 

reflect the court-martial’s results, we find no prejudice and, 

therefore, no need to remand for new post-trial processing. We 

shall order the necessary corrective action in our decretal 

paragraph. 

Otherwise, after conducting a thorough review of the record 

of trial and allied papers, we are convinced that the findings 

and the sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error 

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the 

appellant occurred. Arts. 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ. 

Errors in the Court-Martial Order

At trial, the appellant was charged with, inter alia, 

aggravated assault in violation of Article 128, UCMJ. He 

pleaded guilty to this specification, excepting the words “with 

a force likely to produce . . . death or grievous bodily harm.”1

 

Pursuant to the pretrial agreement, following acceptance of the 

appellant’s pleas by the military judge, the Government withdrew 

all charges, specifications, and language to which the appellant 

pleaded not guilty. When the military judge subsequently 

announced his sentence, these withdrawn charges, specifications, 

and language were dismissed by the CA with prejudice. 

The amended report of result of trial, provided to the CA 

as an enclosure to the second addendum to the SJAR, properly 

indicates the appellant’s plea by exception. This was done by 

placing an asterisk next to the “G” for Specification 2 of 

Charge III under the column entitled “Pleas,” and a footnote 

 

1 Record at 64.
3

annotating that the plea was “GUILTY, excepting the language 

‘with a force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm.’”2

 

No such asterisk appears beside the “G” in the “FINDINGS” column 

for this specification. The appellant’s trial defense counsel 

failed to mention this omission when given an opportunity to 

comment on the second addendum to the SJAR.3 The same convention 

was carried over to the CA’s promulgating order, with the 

asterisk and accompanying note appearing to apply only to the 

appellant’s plea. 

The appellant claims that, because the amended report of 

result of trial did not specifically state he was convicted of 

the lesser offense of assault consummated by a battery, and that 

the report was attached to the second addendum to the SJAR for 

the CA to consider, the CA misunderstood the conduct of which 

the appellant was convicted when he took action on the record of 

trial. We disagree. 

While the second addendum to the SJAR and the CA’s order 

may be read as indicating that the appellant was found guilty of 

the specification as alleged, we cannot say that this 

scrivener’s error prejudiced the appellant. The record of trial 

shows the military judge found the appellant “To Specification 2 

[of Charge III] as excepted: GUILTY.”4

 Also, Part I of the 

pretrial agreement signed by the CA specifically states that the 

agreement was predicated on the appellant pleading guilty, by 

exceptions, only to assault consummated by a battery. The 

court-martial order clearly states that the CA considered the 

pretrial agreement, the results of trial, the record of trial, 

and the defense’s clemency request prior to taking action. We 

have little difficulty concluding that the CA accurately 

understood the conduct of which the appellant was convicted 

prior to the CA taking action on the record of trial. 

 

2 Amended Report of Result of Trial dated 4 November 2014 at 1. 

3 The original report of result of trial was amended to reflect that the 

original Specification 2 of Charge III was withdrawn prior to trial, and that 

Specification 3 of Charge III was renumbered as Specification 2. The issue 

regarding the missing asterisk, however, was present in both the original and 

amended report of result of trial. 

4 Record at 128 (emphasis added). We note that this language, too, is 

inaccurate in that it ignores that the excepted language was withdrawn by the 

Government immediately before the military judge announced his findings. 

Regardless, it is obvious that the military judge did not find the appellant 

guilty of aggravated assault.
4

While we find the appellant’s argument that he was somehow 

prejudiced by the inaccuracy of the post-trial documents to be 

without merit, the appellant is entitled to records that 

correctly reflect the results of court-martial proceedings. See 

United States v. Crumpley, 49 M.J. 538, 539 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 

1998). 

Conclusion

The findings and the sentence are affirmed. The 

supplemental court-martial order shall reflect that the 

appellant was found guilty of Specification 2 of Charge III only 

after the words “with a force likely to produce death or 

grievous bodily harm” were withdrawn and dismissed pursuant to 

the pretrial agreement. 

 

For the Court

 

 

 

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court