With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The clear intent of this provision is to permit the staff judge advocate or legal officer (not the chief of staff or some other officer in the chain of command) to supplement the staff judge advocate’s recommendation. See generally Article 6(b), UCMJ, 10 USC § 806(b) (“Convening authorities shall at all times communicate directly with their staff judge advocates or legal officers in matters relating to the administration of military justice. . . .”); Cooke v. Orser, 12 MJ 335, 344 (CMA 1982) (noting that Congress intended special relationship between commander and staff judge advocate). The attachment of these comments to the post-trial recommendation without the knowledge or approval of the staff judge advocate was legal error. See United States v. Hensley, 52 MJ 391, 393 (2000) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Finster, 51 MJ 185, 188-89

A: holding that it was error for someone other than ships legal officer to prepare posttrial recommendation
B: holding that because judge who was substituted for posttrial motions erred in finding that trial court judge made mistake of law grant of new trial was error
C: holding posttrial submissions inadmissible where there was no compelling reason why the trial record should be reopened the failure to introduce the posttrial submission at trial reflected lack of due diligence and admission of evidence would have caused undue prejudice
D: recognizing that exclusion of testimony that provides a direct link to someone other than the defen dant committing the crime  constitutes reversible error
A.