of the challenged specification from the balance of the appellant’s misconduct. We do not, however, consider the appellant’s actions in a vacuum. Instead, consistent with MCM (2005 ed.), Part IV, 1162c(2)(a)-(i), we note the following aggravating factors supporting the appellant’s conviction of the challenged offense: (1) the appellant was a Marine noncommissioned officer who was not legally separated from his wife. See United States v. Thompson, 22 M.J. 40, 41 (C.M.A.1986) (stating that noncommissioned officers, by virtue of their rank and authority, have the responsibility to maintain high personal standards of conduct); (2) the appellant committed his adulterous acts with Ms. E in his quarters on board a military installation. Cf. United States v. Green, 39 M.J. 606 (A.C.M.R.1994)(<HOLDING>); (3) as a result of his initial encounter with
holding that the trial court committed prejudicial error when it excluded expert testimony on false confessions holding that it is not holding adultery was prejudicial to good order and discipline when it occurred in the barracks where other soldiers could see or find out about it holding that it is prejudicial to indicate to the jury that the plaintiff has or may have another remedy   holding that it is improper for a prosecutor to assume the existence of prejudicial facts not in evidence