## UNITED STATES ARMY COUR T OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before CAMPANELLA, HERRING, and PENLAND Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v. Staff Sergeant ERIC M. MILES United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20150415

Headquarters, United States Army Support Activity, Fort Dix Gregory R. Bockin, Military Judge Lieutenant Colonel Ismael Sanabria, Jr., Staff Judge Advocate (pretrial) Lieutenant Colonel Dolly R. Livingst on, Staff Judge Advocate (post-trial)

For Appellant: Colone l Mary J. Bradley, JA; Major Christopher D. Coleman, JA; Captain Patrick J. Scudieri, JA (on brief).

For Appellee: Colonel Mark H. Sydenham, JA; Lieutenant Colone l A.G. Courie III, JA; Major Michael E. Korte, JA; Captai n Austin L. Fenwick, JA (on brief).

17 January 2017

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

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

HERRING, Judge:

A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of four specif ications of maltreatme nt by sexual harassment and one specification of a busive sexual contact, in violation of Articles 93 and 120, Uniform Code of Militar y Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 893, 920 (2012) [hereinafter UCMJ]. The military judge sentenced appellant to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for one ye ar, forfeiture of all pay and al lowances, and reduction to the grade of E-1. Th e convening authority a pproved only so much of the adjudged sentence as provided for a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for one year, forfeiture of all pay an d allowances, and reducti on to the grad e of E-1.

This case is before us for review pursuant to Ar ticle 66, UCMJ. Appellant raised two assignments of er ror and also personally ra ised matters pursuant to United States v. Grostefon , 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982). We do not yet address these given that the staff judge ad vocate (SJA) did no t advise the conveni ng authority withMILES—ARMY 20150415

2 respect to the legal er rors raised by appellant in his matters pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial [hereina fter R.C.M.] 1105.

BACKGROUND

Appellant’s R.C.M. 1105 matte rs alleged legal error, but the addendum to the staff judge advocate recommendation merely stated, “defense submitted three (3) Government legal errors, na mely: the Government did not execute PVT Miles’s extension orders; the Fort Dix General Courts-Martial Convening Authority did not have proper jurisdiction over PVT Miles to prosecute his case; and the Government

did not follow the advi ce of the Article 32 Preliminar y Hearing Officer.” There is

no evidence of the SJA’s a dvice to convening au thority regarding the merit of the legal errors alleged. Neit her the convening authority’s action nor memorandum denying appellant’s post -trial request for discharge in li eu of trial by courts-martial address the legal errors alleged in appellant’s R.C.M. 1105 matters.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

This court reviews question s of whether post-trial processing was completed correctly de novo. United States v. Sheffield , 60 M.J. 591, 593 (C.A.A.F. 2004). R.C.M. 1106(d)(4) states:

[W]hen the recommendation is prepared by a staff judge advocate, the staff judge advoca te shall state whether, in the staff judge advocate’s opin ion, corrective action on the findings or sentence should be taken wh en an allegation of legal error is raised in matters submitted under R.C.M.

1105 or when otherwise deemed appropriate by the staff judge advocate. Th e response may consist of a statement of agreement or disagreement wi th the matter raised by the accused. An analysis or rationale for the staff judge advocate’s statement, if any, concerning lega l error is not required.

Here, the SJA did not respond to the a lleged legal errors or indicate whether

she believed corrective action was necessary. Because we cannot determine whether the convening authority was properly advised, we find unresolvable error and set

aside the action and return the ca se for a new SJAR and action.MILES—ARMY 20150415

3 CONCLUSION

The convening author ity’s action, dated 11 January 2016, is set aside. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General for a new SJAR and action by the same or a different c onvening authority in accordan ce with Article 60(c)-(e),

UCMJ.

Senior Judge CAMPANELLA and Judge PENLAND concur.

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court FOR THE COURT: