United States v. Begani
20-0217 and20-0327/NA
| C.A.A.F. | Jun 24, 2021Background
- Chief Petty Officer Steven Begani transferred to the Navy Fleet Reserve after ~24 years active service and received retainer pay and continued recall/status obligations.
- While living near MCAS Iwakuni, Japan, Begani exchanged messages with an NCIS undercover agent and was arrested on base.
- The Secretary of the Navy authorized court-martial (Article 2(a)(6)) rather than MEJA prosecution because Begani remained subject to the UCMJ.
- Begani entered a pretrial agreement, pled guilty, and reserved a challenge to the legality of court-martial jurisdiction and whether a punitive discharge was permissible.
- The Navy–Marine Corps CCA affirmed; Begani appealed to CAAF raising: (1) waiver; (2) whether Fleet Reservists are within the “land and naval forces” for UCMJ jurisdiction; and (3) an equal protection challenge to treating Fleet Reservists differently from retired reservists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Begani) | Defendant's Argument (United States) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of constitutional challenge | Begani contends his guilty plea did not waive his Equal Protection/Article 2(a)(6) challenge to jurisdiction | Government contends plea waived non-jurisdictional claims; argues claim only incidentally touches jurisdiction | CAAF: Claim not waived because declaring Article 2(a)(6) unconstitutional would defeat court-martial jurisdiction and R.C.M. 705(c)(1)(B) bars waiving a jurisdictional challenge |
| UCMJ jurisdiction over Fleet Reservists (status test) | Fleet Reservists lack ongoing duties/meaningful ties; court should apply a "significant connection" test and exclude them from "land and naval forces" | Congress may constitutionally subject Fleet Reservists to the UCMJ; status (membership) controls; precedent treats retirees/Fleet Reservists as in the forces | CAAF: Affirms that Fleet Reservists are part of the "land and naval Forces," Congress may subject them to continuous UCMJ jurisdiction; declines to adopt a separate "significant connection" test and defers to Congress |
| Equal protection (Fleet Reserve vs. Retired Reservists) | Disparate treatment (Fleet Reservists subject to UCMJ; retired reservists not) violates equal protection | Groups are not similarly situated: Fleet Reservists receive current pay, must maintain readiness, are subject to broader recall and UCMJ; retired reservists have different pay/recall rules | CAAF: Rational basis met; groups are not similarly situated; differential treatment is constitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Solorio v. United States, 483 U.S. 435 (only the military status of the accused controls court-martial jurisdiction)
- United States v. Tyler, 105 U.S. 244 (retirees can be part of the military service)
- Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 (civilians who sever relationship with military cannot be court-martialed)
- Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (distinguishing civilians from members of the armed forces for military jurisdiction)
- Kinsella v. United States ex rel. Singleton, 361 U.S. 234 (status is the test for court-martial jurisdiction)
- McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210 (retired officers remain subject to UCMJ)
- United States v. Overton, 24 M.J. 309 (C.M.A. 1987) (Fleet Reservists constitutionally triable by court-martial)
- United States v. Dinger, 76 M.J. 552 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2017) (noting recall of retirees in recent wars)