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

                               No. ACM 39323
                          ________________________

                            UNITED STATES
                                Appellee
                                      v.
                         Jordan R. MULLER
           Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
                          ________________________

        Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
                        Decided 21 December 2018

                          ________________________

Military Judge: Andrew Kalavanos.
Approved sentence: Bad conduct discharge, confinement for 9 months,
and reduction to E-1. Sentence adjudged 2 June 2017 by GCM convened
at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.
For Appellant: Major Allen S. Abrams, USAF; Major Mark C. Bruegger,
USAF.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Joseph J. Kubler, USAF; Captain Pe-
ter F. Kellett, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire.
Before HUYGEN, MINK, and POSCH, Appellate Military Judges.
                          ________________________

    This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as
    precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.
                       ________________________


PER CURIAM:
    The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no er-
ror materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles
59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c).
                     United States v. Muller, No. ACM 39323




Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED. *


                   FOR THE COURT




                   JULIE L. ADAMS
                   Deputy Clerk of the Court




* We note that the convening authority’s memorandum dated 20 June 2017, denying
Appellant’s request for deferment of the reduction in rank and the automatic forfeiture
of pay, failed to articulate the reasons for the denial as required by Rule for Courts-
Martial 1101(c)(3). See United States v. Jalos, No. ACM 39138, 2017 CCA LEXIS 607,
at *5–6 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 5 Sep. 2017) (unpub. op.) (citations omitted). However, our
review of the record of trial reveals no colorable showing of possible prejudice as a
result of the convening authority’s error, see 

and we conclude that no relief
is warranted.




                                            2