U.S. v. Harmon, 63 M.J. 98

First Principles: Jurisdiction: In Personam

1. members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment are subject to the UCMJ; generally, a person becomes subject to court-martial jurisdiction upon enlistment in or induction into the armed forces; court-martial jurisdiction over active duty personnel ordinarily ends on delivery of a discharge certificate or its equivalent to the person concerned issued pursuant to competent orders; thus, military jurisdiction over the person continues as long as military status exists
2. a member of an armed force may not be discharged or released from active duty until his discharge certificate and his final pay or a substantial part of that pay, are ready for delivery to him; to effectuate an early discharge, there must be: (1) a delivery of a valid discharge certificate; (2) a final accounting of pay; and (3) the undergoing of a clearing process as required under appropriate service regulations to separate the member from military service
3. if an individual commits an offense before his official discharge, and the military initiates action with a view to trial, the individual may be retained in the service for trial; if jurisdiction has attached by the commencement of action before the effective terminal date of self-executing orders, the person may be held for trial by court-martial beyond the effective terminal date; actions by which court-martial jurisdiction attaches include: apprehension; imposition of restraint, such as restriction, arrest, or confinement; and preferral of charges
4. delivery of a valid discharge can operate as a termination of court-martial in personam jurisdiction; however, the discharge authority must have intended the discharge to take effect
5. although physical delivery of a discharge certificate is generally considered the event that terminates a servicemember’s active duty status, it is crucial to consider the intent of the command to determine the actual effective time and date of discharge
6. in this case, the Court holds that the accused’s status as an active duty service member did not terminate until 2359 on 17 May 2001; the discharge documents (the DD Form 214 in conjunction with the NAVMC 11060 Form) indicated the command’s intent to discharge the accused at 2359 hours on May 17, 2001; it was not the command’s intent that the accused’s discharge would be effective at some arbitrary point in time when a personnel clerk decided to deliver the copies of the DD Form 214 to the accused; thus, the accused’s status as a military member continued until 2359 hours on May 17, 2001; until that time, the accused was merely a person in possession of an order not yet operative; because prior to 2359 hours on May 17, 2001, the command placed a valid legal hold on the accused and acted to revoke the discharge, the accused’s military status was not terminated on May 17, 2001, the court-martial had personal jurisdiction over him, and in personam jurisdiction over the accused was never lost

First Principles: Jurisdiction: Of Trial Court

1. jurisdiction is the power of a court to try and determine a case and to render a valid judgment; generally, there are three prerequisites that must be met for courts-martial jurisdiction to vest: (1) jurisdiction over the offense, (2) personal jurisdiction over the accused, and (3) a properly convened and composed court-martial

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. jurisdiction is a legal question which an appellate court reviews de novo