UNITED STATES ARMY COURT 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. Livingston, Staff Judge Advocate (post-trial) 

For Appellant: Colonel Mary J. Bradley, JA; Major Christopher D. Coleman, JA; 

Captain Patrick J. Scudieri, JA (on brief). 

For Appellee: Colonel Mark H. Sydenham, JA; Lieutenant Colonel A.G. Courie III, 

JA; Major Michael E. Korte, JA; Captain 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 specifications of maltreatment by sexual harassment 

and one specification of abusive sexual contact, in violation of Articles 93 and 

120, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 893, 920 (2012) [hereinafter 

UCMJ]. The military judge sentenced appellant to a dishonorable discharge, 

confinement for one year, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the 

grade of E-1. The convening authority approved only so much of the adjudged 

sentence as provided for a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for one year, 

forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade of E-1. 

 This case is before us for review pursuant to Article 66, UCMJ. Appellant 

raised two assignments of error and also personally raised 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 advocate (SJA) did not advise the convening authority with 
MILES—ARMY 20150415 

2 

respect to the legal errors raised by appellant in his matters pursuant to Rule for 

Courts-Martial [hereinafter R.C.M.] 1105. 

BACKGROUND 

Appellant’s R.C.M. 1105 matters alleged legal error, but the addendum to the 

staff judge advocate recommendation merely stated, “defense submitted three (3) 

Government legal errors, namely: 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 advice of the Article 32 Preliminary Hearing Officer.” There is 

no evidence of the SJA’s advice to convening authority regarding the merit of the 

legal errors alleged. Neither the convening authority’s action nor memorandum 

denying appellant’s post-trial request for discharge in lieu of trial by courts-martial 

address the legal errors alleged in appellant’s R.C.M. 1105 matters. 

LAW AND DISCUSSION 

This court reviews questions 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 advocate shall state whether, in 

the staff judge advocate’s opinion, corrective action on the 

findings or sentence should be taken when 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. The response may consist of a statement 

of agreement or disagreement with the matter raised by the 

accused. An analysis or rationale for the staff judge 

advocate’s statement, if any, concerning legal error is not 

required. 

Here, the SJA did not respond to the alleged 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 case for a new SJAR and action. 
MILES—ARMY 20150415 

3 

CONCLUSION 

The convening authority’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 convening authority in accordance 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: