              U NITED S TATES AIR F ORCE
             C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
                           ________________________

                               No. ACM S32600
                           ________________________

                             UNITED STATES
                                 Appellee
                                       v.
                        Austin B. MCGINNIS
             Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
                          ________________________

        Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
                          Decided 9 January 2020
                          ________________________

Military Judge: Shaun S. Speranza.
Sentence: Sentence adjudged 7 May 2019 by SpCM convened at Dover
Air Force Base, Delaware. Sentence entered by military judge on 3 June
2019: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 30 days, and reduction to
E-1.
For Appellant: Major Benjamin H. DeYoung, USAF.
For Appellee: Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire.
Before J. JOHNSON, POSCH, and KEY, Appellate Military Judges.
                          ________________________

    This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as
    precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.
                       ________________________
PER CURIAM:
   The findings and sentence as entered are correct in law and fact, and no
error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles
59(a) and 66(d), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d).
                  United States v. McGinnis, No. ACM S32600


Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.). Accordingly, the findings
and sentence are AFFIRMED. *


                   FOR THE COURT



                   CAROL K. JOYCE
                   Clerk of the Court




* The 3 June 2019 entry of judgment in this case omitted the convening authority’s
denial of Appellant’s request to defer the adjudged reduction in grade required by Rule
for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1111(b)(3)(A). However, the request and denial were
properly reflected in the convening authority’s 28 May 2019 decision on action, which
is attached to the entry of judgment. Therefore, we find no colorable showing of possible
prejudice from this minor omission, see United States v. Scalo, 60 M.J. 435, 436–37
(C.A.A.F. 2005) (citing United States v. Kho, 54 M.J. 63, 65 (C.A.A.F. 2000)), and cor-
rective action is not necessary. See R.C.M. 1111(c).


                                           2
