In Webb v. United States, 67 M.J. 765 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2009), the issues were if court-martial jurisdiction attached prior to Webbs ETS; and if yes, whether the Air Force subsequently severed that jurisdiction by discharging Webb. The Court ruled that Air Force officials triggered the attachment of jurisdiction by initiating a criminal investigation of Webb and by putting him on administrative hold. The AFCCA held that 10 U.S.C. § 1169 has two requirements for discharge: a discharge certificate and a terminal accounting of pay. The AFCCA reasoned that the final accounting of pay was not at issue as DFAS had deposited Webbs final pay in his account on 12 November. Turning to Webbs discharge certificate, the AFCCA found that Webbs DD 214 was not valid. The AFCCA found that when the AFPC conducted the clerical act of issuing the DD 214, it went against two limitations on issuance imposed by the Secretary of the Air Force. First, the DD 214 was not issued under proper authority as required by the Air Force separations regulation because Webb did not complete the clearing process required by the same regulation. Second, the AFPC technician who issued the DD 214 exceeded his authority by issuing the certificate after the SJA, acting within the intent of Webbs commander and with the authority given by the Secretary of the Air Force, put Webb on administrative hold. The AFCCA held that this made the discharge certificate void or voidable as it was issued in violation of the Secretarys requirements and against the intent of Webbs commander.
Validity of Discharge Certificate
The issue of validity of discharge certificate has been discussed in Schaefer v. Geren, 607 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D.C. 2009). The Court had to decide whether the ABCMR acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and against the law when it concluded that Schaefers first discharge lacked legal effect. The Court concluded that the ABCMR did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or against the law when it held that Schaefers first discharge lacked legal effect because the USADPA revoked the authority to issue the discharge before Schaefer got his discharge certificate. Schaefer, citing Smith v. Vanderbush, 47 M.J. 56 (C.A.A.F. 1997), argued that because he got a facially valid discharge certificate that was not revoked till after his discharge, the Army had to bear the burden of any administrative errors – in this case, the error about the computer notification system. In Vanderbush, as in this case, the Army intended to flag the Soldiers personnel file, but could not do so. The Schaefer court distinguished Vanderbush, noting that in that case the underlying basis of Sergeant Vanderbushs administrative discharge (received before his adjudged punitive discharge was executed) was valid; that is, he had reached his ETS date and his service obligation had ended. In contrast, the Court observed that in Schaefers case the Army (through USAPDA) revoked the authority for Schaefers first discharge prior to the Fort Benning transition point issued him his discharge certificate. The Court ruled: When the underlying authority for the discharge is timely revoked, and error in delivering a discharge certificate does not effectuate a valid discharge. citing United States v. Williams, 53 M.J. 316, 317 (C.A.A.F. 2000).
Comments on this entry are closed.