was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.” Our analysis does not focus on the removal of the terminal element. 3 . Defense Exhibit C at 17. 4 . Prosecution Exhibit 11 at 2; DE C at 1, 2, 5, 9. 5 . DE C at 2, 11, 13, and 24; PE 11 at 2-3. 6 .PE 16 at 47: DE C at 30-31. These text messages were recovered without data indicating who sent them, but the content allows one to reasonably conclude who sent them. 7 . Record at 690. 8 . IcL. 9 . Id. at 689. 10 . Id. at 690. 11 . After the withdrawal and dismissal of Additional Charge II, Additional Charge I should have been renamed simply Additional Charge but was not. For consistency and clarity, we will refer to it as Additional Charge I. 12 . Appellate Exhibit III. 13 . United States v. Teters, 37 M.J. 370, 377-78 (C.M.A.1993) (<HOLDING>). 14 . PE 11 at 2. 15 . Appellant's Brief of 26
holding that all claims arising from the same employment relationship constitute the same transaction or series of transactions for claim preclusion purposes holding that convictions for multiple offenses arising from the same act or transaction are authorized absent congressional intent to the contrary holding that multiple sentences for offenses under 18 usc  924c are appropriate when multiple separate acts of firearm use have occurred even if they are related to the same underlying offense holding that multiple convictions from the same criminal transaction did not subject the defendant to additional punishment under the habitualoffender statutes holding the first question for purposes of a double jeopardy analysis is whether congress expressed its intent concerning multiple convictions at a single trial for different statutory violations arising from the same act or transaction