Personal jurisdiction during assignment transitions depends on the accused’s actual status, not physical location or administrative processing. Military members remain subject to UCMJ jurisdiction throughout active duty service, including leave periods, temporary duty, and permanent change of station moves. The key determination is whether the accused holds active duty status when charges are preferred and referred, regardless of being between units or in transit. Courts examine official orders, leave status, and separation documents to establish jurisdictional facts.
Complexities arise when misconduct occurs during transition periods or members attempt to avoid jurisdiction through administrative maneuvers. Terminal leave doesn’t terminate jurisdiction until actual separation date. Members on excess leave awaiting separation remain subject to recall and court-martial. Even administrative holds or medical extensions maintain status. The losing command typically retains jurisdiction until the gaining command officially assumes authority, though either may exercise jurisdiction through coordination.
Challenges include establishing which command has prosecution authority and ensuring proper service of charges on transitioning members. Convening authorities from either losing or gaining commands may refer charges, often depending on where witnesses and evidence are located. Personal jurisdiction challenges must be raised before pleas or they’re waived. Courts strictly construe jurisdiction, but transition status alone rarely defeats it. The government must prove status through personnel records, orders, and administrative documentation showing continuous active duty throughout relevant periods.