With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to Appellant’s conviction. And, as discussed above, evidence of CL’s prior affair has a direct and substantial link to CL’s credibility; thus, this evidence is highly probative. Furthermore, the military judge overstated the M.R.E. 403 concerns in this case. There is no dispute as to whether the affair occurred. As such, this evidence was unlikely to result in a waste of time or lead to a trial within a trial to determine whether past events actually occurred. Confusion of the issues was also unlikely, given that the theory of relevance was relatively straightforward. And with proper instructions from the military judge on how the members could use this evidence, there is little concern that the members would have been misled. See United States v. Walker, 42 M.J. 67, 74 (C.A.A.F.1995) (<HOLDING>). Because evidence of CL’s prior affair was

A: recognizing that the military judges instructions to members on the proper use of testimony could have resolved mre 403 issues
B: holding that a jury is presumed to follow a judges instructions
C: recognizing appellate courts discretion to consider issues raised in the district court but not resolved there
D: recognizing that had the case before it been a jury trial it could have looked to the judges instructions in hope of illuminating the rationale behind the verdicts
A.