Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the lower court. However, this error did not materially prejudice Appellant’s substantial rights. In the instant case, we conclude that the military judge erred in admitting the video-recorded interview of AH in its entirety. 801(d)(1)(B): it must either rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or it must rehabilitate the declarant’s credibility “when attacked on another ground.” Id. We further hold that the prior consistent statement must serve one of the express purposes cited by M.R.E. Pursuant to the provisions of Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 801(d)(1)(B), we hold that only those portions of a witness’s prior statement that are consistent with the witness’s courtroom testimony may be deemed admissible at trial. 19-0298/AR Opinion of the Court Whether the military judge erred in admitting over defense objection the video-recorded interview of AH by CID because it was not a prior consistent statement under Mil. We granted review on the following issue: United States v. The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals set aside the finding of guilty for the Article 92, UCMJ, offense, but affirmed the remaining findings of guilty for the Article 120b, UCMJ, offenses. The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence of a dishonorable discharge, confinement for six years, and a reduction to the grade of E-1. A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of violating a lawful general regulation for providing alcohol to a minor, one specification of sexual abuse of a child, and three specifications of rape of a child who had not attained the age of twelve years, in violation of Articles 92 and 120b, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. _ Judge OHLSON delivered the opinion of the Court. Judge OHLSON delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Judge STUCKY, and Judges RYAN, SPARKS, and MAGGS, joined.

Williams, and Major Craig Schapira (on brief). For Appellee: Captain Brian Jones (argued) Colonel Steven Haight, Lieutenant Colonel Wayne H. 20170501 Argued December 4, 2019-Decided MaMilitary Judges: Jeffery R. FINCH, Specialist United States Army, Appellant No. Six years as Divisional Safety Manager for St Regis Paper Company which incorporated circa 2000 staff and covered 6 paper mills, 19 recycled depots and 14 logistics depots.This opinion is subject to revision before publication UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES _ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Provided consultancy advice as CDM co-ordinator in the coal power station industry, construction, LNG, and paper industry HAZOP chair in the steel industry project supervision and audit in many industries.

Six years self-employed, providing specialist advice to a wide range of companies, including RWEnPower ThyssenKrupp Tata Steel DS Smith Packaging and AAG Logistics. Heavily involved in a culture change programme to change high-risk outage work to a more inclusive safety approach. Provided a mix of process safety (gas pipeline, pressure systems etc.) and occupational safety advice and support. Involved both in a day-to-day advisory capacity and power station outage works.

Three years in the power industry with both Centrica and GE advising on safety and environmental management at several gas-fired power stations. Richard has over 20 years of experience in the field of industrial safety, with significant expertise in heavy manufacturing, power, recycling and construction industries.

Us vs richard finch