With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". we have addressed the role of subordinates, often the staff judge advocate, in performing a prehminarily screening of members. In so doing, this Court has repeatedly declared its vigilance in guaranteeing the judicial integrity of a court-martial and in preventing improper selection of court members. See Roland, 50 M.J. at 68; Hilow, 32 M.J. at 442. Several cases provide guidance as to what cannot be done in screening members for the CA’s consideration of appointment to a court-martial. In United States v. Daigle, 1 M.J. 139 (C.M.A.1975) we rejected a staff judge advocate’s process to obtain nominees from subordinate commanders solely on the basis of their rank and without consideration of the Article 25(b)(2), UCMJ criteria. See also United States v. Kirkland, 53 M.J. 22 (C.A.A.F.2000)(<HOLDING>); cf. United States v. Yager, 7 M.J. 171, 173

A: holding that a defendant may object to the exclusion of members of the defendants own race
B: holding that argument offered in defense of decision below had been waived when not raised below
C: holding that exclusion of potentially qualified members below the grade of e7 was improper
D: holding exclusion was harmless error
C.