U.S. v. Oliver, 57 M.J. 170

First Principles: Jurisdiction: In Personam

1. Article 2(a)(1) indicates that servicemembers, including reservists, who are "lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces," are subject to jurisdiction
2. a "reserve component" servicemember who is on active duty prior to arraignment is subject to court-martial jurisdiction
3. the beginning language of Article 132 -- "`[a]ny person subject to this chapter' -- does not establish an element of the offense but, rather, sets forth the baseline for jurisdiction under the UCMJ common to all offenses" - Congress set forth the "any person" language as a basic jurisdictional prerequisite, not as an element of a particular offense or offenses that are not peculiarly military
4. medical hold is a valid reason for extending the active duty of a reservist, or any servicemember, and entitles him or her to the full pay and benefits of being on active duty; where the medical records submitted clearly indicate that appellant was retained on active duty beyond the expiration of his orders, the court-martial possessed subject matter jurisdiction over the offense committed during that period of extension for medical hold

First Principles: Jurisdiction: Of Trial Court

1. a court-martial requires both in personam and subject matter jurisdiction, in addition to a properly constituted and referred court-martial
2. jurisdiction is an interlocutory issue, to be decided by the military judge, with the burden placed on the Government to prove jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence