Case Name: UNITED STATES v. Sergeant Dick R. MONOD DE FROIDEVILLE, FR [ XXX-XX-XXXX ], United States Air Force
Court: United States Air Force Court of Military Review
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1980-07-21
Citations: 9 M.J. 854
Docket Number: ACM S24925
Parties: UNITED STATES v. Sergeant Dick R. MONOD DE FROIDEVILLE, FR [ XXX-XX-XXXX ], United States Air Force.
Judges: Before EARLY, ARROWOOD and MILES, Appellate Military Judges.
Reporter: West's Military Justice Reporter
Volume: 9
Pages: 854–854

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES v. Sergeant Dick R. MONOD DE FROIDEVILLE, FR [ XXX-XX-XXXX ], United States Air Force.
ACM S24925.
U. S. Air Force Court of Military Review.
Sentence Adjudged 17 Jan. 1980.
Decided 21 July 1980.
Appellate Counsel for the Accused: Colonel Larry G. Stephens and Captain Thomas S. Markiewicz, USAFR.
Appellate Counsel for the United States: Colonel James P. Porter.
Before EARLY, ARROWOOD and MILES, Appellate Military Judges.

Opinion:
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
Contrary to his pleas, accused was convicted of absence without leave and missing movement in violation of Articles 86 and 87, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 886, 887.
Accused's appellate counsel, citing United States v. Gillchrist, 50 C.M.R. 832 (A.F.C.M.R.1975), contend that the military judge erred in finding accused guilty of missing movement. We disagree. In Gillchrist, we held a plea of guilty improvident because it made little difference which of several commercial flights the accused embarked on to travel to Turkey. Here, the accused was twice assigned a seat aboard a military chartered aircraft pursuant to a duly directed change of assignment. Demonstrating an intention not to go to Korea at all, he twice, through design, missed his flight. More than a simple failure to repair is involved, and the offense of missing movement of the aircraft may be punished as such. See United States v. Johnson, 3 U.S.C.M.A. 174, 11 C.M.R. 174 (1953); United States v. St. Ann, 6 M.J. 563 (N.C.M.R. 1978), pet. denied, 7 M.J. 392 (C.M.A.1979).
The remaining assignment of error is without merit. See United States v. Frederick, 3 M.J. 230 (C.M.A.1977); United States v. George, 6 M.J. 880 (A.C.M.R.1979), pet. denied, 7 M.J. 65 (C.M.A.1979); United States v. McMahon, 4 M.J. 648 (A.F.C.M.R. 1977).
Accordingly, the findings of guilty and the sentence are
AFFIRMED.