Whether military courts of criminal appeals have authority under 10 U.S.C. §§ 860c and 866(d)(2) to correct an unconstitutional firearms ban annotated after entry of judgment

In military courts -martial, under 10 U.S.C. § 860c, the Entry of Judgment (EoJ) is the final judgment , mark ing the end of trial and the beginning of the posttrial process . In the Air Force, a senior attorney who advises commanders prepares a memo randum , called a First Indorsement, to indicate receipt of the EoJ and summarize criminal indexing requirements . This include s indexing for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) . The First Indorsement makes a legal determination about whether 18 U.S.C. § 922 applies to the convicted servicemember and effectuates a restriction of their Second Amendment right s. If that legal determination is made in error, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals ( AFCCA) has statutory authority under Article 66(d)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866(d)(2), to provide relief . Despite a clear statute providing authority to the AFCCA, the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces (CAAF) decided that military courts have no such authority . The question presented is: Whether military courts of criminal appeals have authority under 10 U.S.C. §§ 860c and 866(d)(2) to correct an unconstitutional firearms ban annotated after entry of judgment .