testified about how his wife’s behavior had changed since the night of the incident. We conclude that this constituted permissible lay testimony. It was based on Cpl AI’s personal knowledge and perceptions of his wife’s conduct after the alleged assault. This testimony was not based on specialized or scientific knowledge; Cpl AI merely provided his personal observations of Cl’s behavior. Therefore, we conclude that Cpl AI’s testimony on direct was not the functional equivalent of human lie detector evidence because it did not provide a sufficient inference that he believed Cl was being truthful. See Mullins, 69 M.J. at 116. Cpl AI’s testimony on direct examination was therefore admissible under Military Rule of Evidence 701. Cf. United States v. Roberson, 65 M.J. 43, 47 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (<HOLDING>). As a. consequence, we further conclude that
holding that witnesss opinion of a persons reaction to hearing a statement was admissible lay testimony based on personal observation holding that single lay witnesss testimony was insufficient to rebut the opinion of a skilled and disinterested government psychiatrist which opinion is in no way impugned or discredited holding that lay testimony as to the presence of asbestos in the workplace which was based upon personal knowledge of employees was properly admitted holding that a witnesss testimony or an exhibit may not explicitly and directly contain an opinion as to a trial witnesss credibility holding that lay opinion testimony is not admissible when the jury can readily draw the necessary inferences and conclusions without the aid of the opinion