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

                               No. ACM S32645
                          ________________________

                             UNITED STATES
                                 Appellee
                                       v.
                         Bradley J. BRUNER
                Airman Basic (E-1), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
                          ________________________

           Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
                            Decided 7 August 2020
                          ________________________

Military Judge: Christopher M. Schumann.
Sentence: Sentence adjudged on 13 December 2019 by SpCM convened at
Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. Sentence entered by military judge on 7
January 2020: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 30 days, and a
reprimand.
For Appellant: Major Rodrigo M. Caruço, USAF.
For Appellee: Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire.
Before MINK, KEY, and ANNEXSTAD, 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    This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as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 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. Bruner, No. ACM S32645


Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.). Accordingly, the
approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED. 1,2


                  FOR THE COURT



                  CAROL K. JOYCE
                  Clerk of the Court




1We note the Statement of Trial Results in this case failed to include the command
which convened the court-martial as required by Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.)
1101(a)(3). Appellant has made no claim of prejudice and we find none. See United
States v. Moody-Neukom, No. ACM S32594, 2019 CCA LEXIS 521, at *2–3 (A.F. Ct.
Crim. App. 16 Dec. 2019) (per curiam) (unpub. op.).
2 We note the entry of judgment failed to address the nature of the Appellant’s request
for deferment of automatic forfeitures and the convening authority’s action on the
request, as required by R.C.M. 1111(b)(3)(A). Appellant has made no claim of prejudice
and we find none.


                                          2