In United States v. Russell, No. 2014-11 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 3, 2015) (link to slip op.), a three-judge panel of the Air Force CCA denies a Government appeal of a military judge’s ruling that dismissed (what appears to be) a single specification of wrongful use of ecstasy, finding that the appellee was validly discharged when she received her DD-214 and final pay, and rejecting that Government’s argument that “even if delivered, the [discharge] certificate was invalid because it was contrary to [the appellee’s] squadron commander’s intent.” Slip op. at 3.

7 Responses to “The AFCCA rejects a Government appeal about personal jurisdiction”

  1. k fischer says:

    The wheels of justice go……………..round……………..and r.o..o…o….o…….u……..
    So, this Airman returned in the end of November 2013, and a one spec charge sheet wasn’t drafted until 30 June 14?  I’m assuming the taxpayers are still paying her salary, as well.  And, the Government appealed the MJ’s ruling and lost?  
    Seems like a lot of work to prosecute someone  who on diverse occasions during a five month period a year previously allegedly used ecstasy.

  2. afjagcapt says:

    @kf, you and I don’t agree on a lot, but, when you’re right, you’re right.

  3. k fischer says:

    So, you admit that if I am always right, hyperbolically speaking, then sometimes you are wrong……but, nobody’s perfect, so when I’m wrong, then, you’d be right…..unless you agree with me and we are both wrong……….at which point, you’d be wrong……but, in this case, I think we are both right……..unless you just changed your mind… which case, you may or may not be wrong…..depending on if I am in fact right……..but, then you would be wrong for saying I’m right.  Know what I’m sayin’?

  4. afjagcapt says:

    @ kf: That’s a negative, Ghostrider; the pattern is full.

  5. wowzers says:

    I’ve seen many commanders respond to ‘stupid’ questions from subordinates (usually via email) with the simple response “RTFO” which is ‘read the *** order’. I have to wonder if the AFCCA gave govt counsel similar treatment since, had they read the instructions, the conclusion would have been known on 3 December 2013.

  6. Saul says:

    Glad to see that when we need to consider whether the Gov’t still has jurisdiction we don’t need to ask the commander for his(her) intent and can rely on the documented evidence. 
    How did this get past the SJA to court?

  7. Michael Lowrey says:

    Given recent developments, I be shocked if AFCCA’s ruling is the final word on this matter.