Source: http://www.caaflog.com/category/september-2013-term/united-states-v-passut/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 01:19:33+00:00

Document:
CAAF decided the Air Force case of United States v. Passut, No. 13-0518/AF, 73 M.J. 27 (CAAFlog case page) (link to slip op.), on January 8, 2014, finding that a civilian AAFES employee was performing a military function when Appellant lied to her to get checks cashed, affirming Appellant’s pleas of guilty to making false official statements and the decision of the Air Force CCA.
Chief Judge Baker writes for the court, joined by Judges Erdmann and Ryan and Senior Judge Effron. Judge Stucky writes separately, concurring in the result.
Appellant pleaded guilty to numerous offenses at a general court-martial, and was sentenced to confinement for 10 months, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. Among those offenses were five specifications of making false official statements in violation of Article 107, arising from Appellant’s check-cashing activities at the base exchange. Three of these specifications addressed false statements that Appellant made to Army & Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) employees, and the other two addressed false statements he made to employees of a bank located within the exchange facility. The statements all involved Appellant’s obscurement of his social security number on his identification card and his presentation of a different person’s social security number when asked for the number (they asked to determine if he had passed bad checks before, which he had).
After Appellant pleaded and was sentenced, CAAF decided the twin Article 107 cases of United States v. Spicer, 71 M.J. 470 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (CAAFlog case page), and United States v. Capel, 71 M.J. 485 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (CAAFlog case page), clarifying the circumstances that make a statement “official” for Article 107 purposes.
Whether a statement made to an AAFES employee for the purpose of cashing a worthless check satisfies the “official” element of a false official statement.
AAFES — which is governed by service regulations and whose profits are fed back into the military — has a closer and more intricate relationship to the armed forces, a relationship sufficient to establish a military function.
Passut, Slip op. at 13. The analytical approach that gets the court to this conclusion is based on the nature of the AAFES system, “a joint, nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the Department of Defense” (slip op. at 9), with a “significant role in maintaining servicemembers’ morale and welfare while also providing essential services” (slip op. at 12), and that makes “millions of dollars in annual contributions and [has] a continuous presence on bases, installations, and other military sites across the world” (slip op. at 12). It has practically nothing to do with the check cashing activities that formed the basis for Appellant’s false statement and for his challenge before CAAF “that cashing a check is not a military function” sufficient to meet the Spicer test. Slip op. at 6.
Listening to the audio of the oral argument, I heard a lot of discussion focused on the nature of the hearer of the false statement (a civilian AAFES employee) and less focused on the nature of the activity (cashing a check).
The appellant pleaded guilty to making false statements to civilian employees while cashing checks with AAFES and with a private bank that was a tenant in the AAFES facility. But the CCA set aside only the specifications involving the false statements to the civilian employee of the private bank, and the Government did not appeal, leaving the practically-identical statements to the AAFES civilian employee for CAAF’s consideration. Taking at step back, the case is about the exact same type of false statements, made for the exact same purposes, in practically the exact same place, to two different civilians, some of the statements not official, others to be determined.
United States v. Payne, No. 13-0245/AF (CAAFlog case page): Argument audio.
United States v. Passut, No. 13-0518/AF (CAAFlog case page): Argument audio.
 The speaker may make a false official statement “in the line of duty” or to civilian law enforcement officials if the statement bears a “clear and direct relationship” to the speaker’s official duties.
Spicer, 71 M.J. at 474-75 (citations removed) (formatting added). Appellant Passut pleaded guilty to numerous offenses at a general court-martial, and was sentenced to confinement for 10 months, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. Relevant to this appeal are five specifications of making false official statements in violation of Article 107, in connection with Appellant’s check-cashing activities at the base exchange.
Three of these specifications address false statements that Appellant made to Army & Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) employees, and the other two address false statements he made to employees of a bank located within the exchange facility. The statements all involved Appellant’s obscurement of his social security number on his identification card and his presentation of a different person’s social security number when asked for the number (they asked in order to determine if he had passed bad checks in the past).
[W]e find the AAFES cashiers were civilians “performing military functions” at the time the appellant made his false statements, and those false statements affected those military functions. We also find the appellant admitted to sufficient facts to establish this element. He agreed AAFES existed on every military base to provide services to military members and dependents and worked closely with the military in doing so. He also agreed the AAFES cashiers’ duties included ensuring individuals like himself did not write bad checks at an AAFES facility as they operated the cash registers and accepted payments. We recognize that the military judge told the appellant AAFES was “not quite so much a military organization” and the appellant stated these employees were performing a “governmental-like function” when dealing with him instead of using the “military function” language from Spicer. However, when the totality of the guilty plea inquiry is considered in context, we do not find this to be a substantial basis in law or fact requiring the rejection of his guilty plea as improvident.
AFCCA yesterday issued this published opinion fleshing out CAAF’s recent guidance on officiality for Article 107 purposes. United States v. Passut, __ M.J. __, No. ACM 37755 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 16, 2013). AFCCA held that due to AAFES’s status as a military instrumentality, a false statement made to an AAFES shopette cashier for the purpose of cashing a worthless check is official. But a false statement made to an employee of a civilian bank located at a military exchange complex is not.
Judge Hecker wrote for a unanimous panel.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.