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, if the Air Force subsequently severed that jurisdiction by discharging Webb. The Court held that Air Force officials initiated the attachment of jurisdiction by starting a criminal investigation of Webb and by putting him on administrative hold. The Court held that 10 U.S.C. § 1169 imposes two requirements for discharge: a discharge certificate and a final accounting of pay. The Court 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 observed that when the AFPC conducted the clerical act of issuing the DD 214, it violated two limitations on issuance imposed by the Secretary of the Air Force. First, the DD 214 was not issued under proper authority as needed by the Air Force separations regulation because Webb did not complete the clearing process mandated by the same regulation. Next, 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, placed Webb on administrative hold. The Court determined that this made the discharge certificate void or voidable since 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 dealt with in Schaefer v. Geren, 607 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D.C. 2009). The Court had to determine whether the ABCMR acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and against the law when it concluded that Schaefers first discharge was without legal effect. The Court found that the ABCMR did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law when it concluded that Schaefers first discharge lacked legal effect because the USADPA revoked the authority to issue the discharge before Schaefer receiving his discharge certificate. Schaefer, citing Smith v. Vanderbush, 47 M.J. 56 (C.A.A.F. 1997), argued that since 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, like in this case, the Army intended to flag the Soldiers personnel file, but failed to do so. The Schaefer court distinguished Vanderbush, observing that in that case the underlying basis of Sergeant Vanderbushs administrative discharge (received prior to his adjudged punitive discharge was executed) was valid; that is, he had attained his ETS date and his service obligation had ended. However, the Court found 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 held: 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.