Here’s a link to an unpublished per curiam opinion that CGCCA issued today dismissing a spec on multiplicity and unreasonable multiplication of charges grounds:
We note that Appellant was convicted of “willfully allow[ing] other persons to have and/or use a military pass or permit, to wit: his military identification card, in violation of 18 USC § 499” (Charge V Specification 1); “wrongfully loan[ing] to others [his] military identification card” (Charge V Specification 2); and “wrongfully sell[ing] to [two named Coast Guard seamen] [his] military identification card” (Charge V Specification 4). It is clear from the providence inquiry that Specifications 1 and 2, which allege exactly the same acts in slightly different language but without substantive difference, are based on the same facts. We view this as multiplicity, subjecting Appellant to double jeopardy, as well as unreasonable multiplication of charges. We will disapprove the conviction of the first specification and dismiss it. The military judge determined that Charge V Specifications 1 and 2 were multiplicious for sentencing (R. at 19), so the sentence is unaffected.
United States v. Smith, No. 1346, slip op. at 3 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. May 11, 2012) (per curiam) (alterations in original).