U NITED S TATES AIR F ORCE
C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
________________________
No. ACM 39182
________________________
UNITED STATES
Appellee
v.
Scott A. STAJCAR
Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
________________________
Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
Decided 28 July 2017
________________________
Military Judge: Charles E. Wiedie, Jr.
Approved sentence: Dishonorable discharge and confinement for 9
months. Sentence adjudged 30 August 2016 by GCM convened at
Kadena Air Base, Japan.
For Appellant: Colonel Christopher W. Dentel, USAF; Major Mark C.
Bruegger, USAF.
For Appellee: Major Mary Ellen Payne, USAF; Major Meredith L.
Steer, USAF.
Before MAYBERRY, JOHNSON, and SPERANZA, 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This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as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
error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Arti-
United States v. Stajcar, No. ACM 39182
cles 59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a),
866(c). Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED. 1
FOR THE COURT
KURT J. BRUBAKER
Clerk of the Court
1 We note two errors in the promulgating order with respect to the language of Speci-
fication 1 of the Charge. First, the order incorrectly reads “. . . with your finger and
his mouth,” whereas the specification alleges “. . . with his finger and his mouth.”
Second, the order incorrectly indicates Appellant pleaded guilty to the entire specifi-
cation, and the military judge found Appellant guilty of the specification except the
words “and mouth,” of which the military judge found Appellant not guilty. In fact,
Appellant pleaded guilty to the specification but excepted the words “and mouth,” to
which he pleaded not guilty. After pleas but before the military judge entered find-
ings, the Government withdrew and dismissed the words “and mouth,” and the mili-
tary judge subsequently found Appellant guilty of the remaining language without
exceptions. We find no prejudice, but to ensure the accuracy of court-martial records,
we direct the publication of a corrected court-martial order.
2
