With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Gray, 7 M.J. at 298. Because the record in this case is not sufficiently complete to allow full appellate review, we do not reach the issue of the impact of the omission on appellant's sentence. 18 . In the context of a constitutional error, the government must demonstrate that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Simmons, 59 M.J. 485, 489 (C.A.A.F.2004). While we do not believe that a technical violation of the statutory Article 31(b), UCMJ, warning requirement automatically rises to the level of a constitutional error, we note that our superior court has not definitely stated whether such a violation should be analyzed using the constitutional or nonconstitutional harmless error standard. See United States v. Guyton-Bhatt, 56 M.J. 484, 487 (C.A.A.F.2002) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Swift, 53 M.J. 439

A: holding that appellate court should review error in trial procedure to determine if it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
B: holding that trial court must determine whether fifth amendment violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
C: holding that error in admitting statement taken in violation of article 31b ucmj was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
D: holding that in order to conclude that federal constitutional error is harmless court must find that error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
C.