Case Name: UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Private First Class David M. HILL, SSN [ XXX-XX-XXXX ], United States Army, Appellant
Court: United States Army Court of Military Review
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1979-03-30
Citations: 7 M.J. 580
Docket Number: SPCM 13734
Parties: UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Private First Class David M. HILL, SSN [ XXX-XX-XXXX ], United States Army, Appellant.
Judges: Before MITCHELL, DRIBBEN and FELDER, Appellate Military Judges.
Reporter: West's Military Justice Reporter
Volume: 7
Pages: 580–582

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Private First Class David M. HILL, SSN [ XXX-XX-XXXX ], United States Army, Appellant.
SPCM 13734.
U. S. Army Court of Military Review.
30 March 1979.
Colonel Edward S. Adamkewicz, Jr., JAGC, Captain Grifton E. Carden, JAGC, and Captain William L. Finch, JAGC, were on the pleadings for appellant.
Colonel Thomas H. Davis, JAGC, Lieutenant Colonel R. R. Boiler, JAGC, Major Michael B. Kennett, JAGC, and Captain Michael C. Chapman, JAGC, were on the pleadings for appellee.
Before MITCHELL, DRIBBEN and FELDER, Appellate Military Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
FELDER, Judge:
Pursuant to a pretrial agreement, the appellant pleaded guilty to being absent without authority, disobeying a noncommissioned officer and breaching restraint by absenting himself from the correctional custody facility. The approved sentence necessitates review of the case by this Court.
The appellant now claims that his plea of guilty is improvident for two reasons. First, since the convening authority suspended the bad-conduct discharge for four months and because neither the written agreement nor the trial judge mentioned the period of suspension, there was a sub rosa arrangement that was not discussed during the providency inquiry. Secondly, the plea is unacceptable because the bargained agreement contains a provision contrary to law and public policy, to wit: the agreement becomes invalid if the appellant pleads not guilty at a rehearing directed by the convening authority.
The appellant's assertions lack merit. Where, as here, the providency inquiry satisfies the standards set forth in United States v. Care, 18 U.S.C.M.A. 535, 40 C.M.R. 247 (1969), the failure of the trial judge to strictly comply with the requirement of United States v. King, 3 M.J. 458 (C.M.A.1977) and United States v. Green, 1 M.J. 453 (C.M.A.1976) is a matter that affects the providence of the plea. However, a plea of guilty will not be declared improvident unless the appellant demonstrates to this Court that the failure by the trial judge to strictly comply with the mandates of King and Green has caused harm to him. To the contrary, in this case the suspension of the discharge for only four months benefitted the appellant and since no rehearing has been directed, the complained of provision is nugatory. This Court will not grant relief to the appellant on an illusive basis.
Accordingly, the findings of guilty and sentence are affirmed.
Senior Judge MITCHELL concurs.