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

                                    No. ACM S32626
                               ________________________

                                  UNITED STATES
                                      Appellee
                                            v.
                            Jacob L. BRINGARD
                  Airman Basic (E-1), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
                               ________________________

           Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
                               Decided 27 March 2020
                               ________________________

Military Judge: Andrew R. Norton.
Sentence: Sentence adjudged on 1 October 2019 by SpCM convened at
Dover Air Force Base, Delaware. Sentence entered by military judge on
30 October 2019: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 44 days, and
a reprimand.
For Appellant: Major Rodrigo M. Caruço, USAF.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Brian C. Mason, USAF.
Before MINK, LEWIS, and D. JOHNSON, 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       This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as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 approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no
error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. *


*   After the court-martial adjourned, the military judge signed a Statement of Trial
(Footnote continues on next page)
                   United States v. Bringard, No. ACM S32626


Articles 59(a) and 66(d), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a),
866(d). 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




Results (STR) and inserted it into the record of trial in accordance with Rule for Courts-
Martial (R.C.M.) 1101(a). The rule lists a number of required contents, including inter
alia “the command by which [the court-martial] was convened.” R.C.M. 1101(a)(3). The
STR in this case included most of the required contents, and it indicated the squadron
and major command to which Appellant was assigned, but it omitted the command
which convened the court-martial. United States v. Moody-Neukom, No. ACM S32594,
2019 CCA LEXIS 521, at *2–3 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 16 Dec. 2019) (unpub. op.).
However, 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 we do not find it necessary to direct corrective
action pursuant to R.C.M. 1112(d)(2).

                                            2
