are not multiplicious for findings and do not constitute ‘piling on’ ” and denied the motion. Prior to sentencing, defense counsel argued that the rape charge, the sodomy charge, and the specifications for indecent acts, indecent language and incest all arise from one transaction and should be found multiplicious for sentencing purposes. The military judge granted the motion as to the rape and incest charges, but denied it as to the others. B. Discussion (1) Multiplicity The primary question raised by this issue is whether the indecent acts committed by Paxton and the rape amount to the “same act or course of conduct” or whether they are distinct and discrete acts, allowing separate convictions. Teters, 37 M.J. at 373; see also United States v. Neblock, 45 M.J. 191, 197 (C.A.A.F.1996) (<HOLDING>). This court reviews claims of multiplicity de
recognizing that if it is a distinct or discreteact offense separate convictions are allowed in accordance with the number of discrete acts holding the proper unit of prosecution for indecent liberties is the number of discrete acts holding that consecutive sentences were warranted because of the multiple separate and distinct criminal acts holding aiding and abetting is not a discrete criminal offense holding that the protection of the double jeopardy clause does not preclude a defendant from being charged under a statute  defining as the criminal offense a discrete act after a prior conviction or acquittal of a distinguishable discrete act that is a separate violation of the statute