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

                              No. ACM S32578
                          ________________________

                            UNITED STATES
                                Appellee
                                      v.
                         Eric C. ERDMANN
             Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
                          ________________________

        Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
                          Decided 13 August 2019
                          ________________________

Military Judge: Jennifer J. Raab.
Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 4 months,
forfeiture of $1,256.00 pay per month for 2 months, and reduction to E-
2. Sentence adjudged 8 January 2019 by SpCM convened at Ellsworth
Air Force Base, South Dakota.
For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel R. Davis Younts, 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    This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as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 er-
ror materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles
                    United States v. Erdmann, No. ACM S32578


59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). 1
Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED. 2, 3


                    FOR THE COURT



                    CAROL K. JOYCE
                    Clerk of the Court




1   Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 ed.).
2 We note that the court-martial order (CMO) is not dated the same date as the con-
vening authority’s action. See Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1114(c)(2) (“A promul-
gating order shall bear the date of the initial action, if any, of the convening author-
ity”). We also note that the header on the top of page 2 of the CMO is not dated the
same date as page 1. We direct a corrected court-martial order to reflect the date of the
action.
3 Although Appellant raises no specific assignment of error, we note the staff judge
advocate recommendation erroneously advised the convening authority that the max-
imum sentence that could be imposed by this special court-martial included, inter alia,
total forfeitures and a fine. See R.C.M. 201(f)(2)(B)(i); R.C.M. 1003(b)(2) and (3); United
States v. Books, No. ACM S32369, 2017 CCA LEXIS 226, at *7 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 

) (unpub. op.). However, under the facts of this case we find no colorable
showing of possible prejudice, and therefore we affirm. See United States v. Scalo, 

, 436–37 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (citation omitted); United States v. Miller, No. ACM
S32433, 2018 CCA LEXIS 207, at *10–11 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 25 Apr. 2018) (unpub.
op.).


                                            2