conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or conduct tending to bring discredit upon the armed forces), four factors must be considered: (1) the time, (2) the place, (3) the circumstances, and (4) the purpose for the cross-dressing. Finally, the Court added one caveat: Also, the factfinder must be certain that the prejudice or the discrediting nature of the conduct is legitimately focused toward good order and discipline or discrediting to the armed forces, and is not solely the result of the personal fears, phobias, biases, or prejudices of the witnesses. Id. at 298. Prior to Guerrero, this Court provided similar clarification concerning the reach of Article 134 in United States v. Carter, 23 M.J. 683 (N.M.C.M.R.1986), petition for review dismissed, 24 M.J. 229 (C.M.A.1987) (<HOLDING>). In my opinion, Guerrero and Carter provide
holding that due process requires that notice be reasonably calculated under all circumstances to provide parties with notice of the pending action holding that enlisted fraternization under servicediscrediting or disciplineprejudicing circumstances violates article 134 assuming adequate due process notice holding a judgment in the absence of notice violates due process rights holding that lack of notice of charges in disciplinary proceedings violates the due process clause holding that procedural due process requires adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard