command and going to physical therapy at the Naval Hospital. As such, his statements related directly to his availability to perform his duties and his precise location on base. The statements were made to individuals whose duties included being responsible for appellant including knowing his whereabouts and duty status. Under these circumstances, we conclude that appellant’s statements were clearly “official” and were made to individuals with a “duty to account” for the accused. See generally United States v. Davenport, 9 MJ 364 (CMA 1980). Unpub. op. at 1. A false official statement includes all statements made in the line of military duty. The determination of whether a military duty existed in a particular case is based on the evidence of record. See United States v. Jackson, supra (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Plascencia-Orozco,
holding that even if there is no independent duty to account a servicemember who lies in an oral statement to a law enforcement agent conducting an investigation as part of his duties has violated article 107 holding that a law enforcement agent may not testify about an opinion reached during his investigation if the agents reasoning process depended in whole or in part on his specialized training and experience holding that an insurer has a duty to conduct an investigation reasonably appropriate under the circumstances holding that anonymous statement was admissible as a statement by a partys agent under rule 801d2d and noting that a district court should be presented with sufficient evidence to conclude that the person who is alleged to have made the damaging statement is in fact a party or an agent of that party holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify