Lloyd, 46 M.J. at 23— it is appropriate to examine the record of trial. United States v. Heryford, 52 M.J. 265, 266 (2000). Having done so in this case, because the charges are not factually the same, we find that these two offenses are not multiplicious. The facts in this case are analogous to the situation where an individual begins a period of unauthorized absence while simultaneously breaking restriction or missing the movement of his ship or unit. In such cases our superior court has held that “[w]hile an absence of some minimal duration is fairly embraced in an allegation of breach of restriction ... one of extended length is not.” United States v. DiBello, 17 M.J. 77, 79 (C.M.A.1983)(internal quotes and citations omitted). See also United States v. Murray, 17 M.J. 81 (C.M.A.1983)(<HOLDING>). See also United States v. Olinger, 47 M.J.
holding that unauthorized absence of over five months and missing movement were not multiplicious holding that two acts of mail fraud within five months constituted a pattern holding over holding one and onehalf months establishes causation while three months is too long and does not holding that charges for work done less than five months before an idea due process hearing were reasonable