Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals has authority under 10 U.S.C. § 866(d)(2) to correct an unconstitutional firearms ban annotated after entry of judgment

In military courts -martial, the Entry of Judgment (EoJ) is the final judgment mark ing the end of trial and the beginning of the post-trial process . In the Department of the Air Force, a memorandum called a “First Indorsement ” memorializ es receipt of the EoJ. The First Indorsement summarize s criminal indexing requirements , including indexing for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) . On the First Indorsement , one lawyer —a judge advocate —makes a legal determination about whether 18 U.S.C. § 922 applies to a convicted servicemember , thereby effectuat ing a restriction of that servicemember ’s 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 this clear statutory authority , the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces (CAAF) decided that no military appellate court has the authority to correct an erroneous firearm prohibition made during post -trial processing . The question presented is: Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals has authority under 10 U.S.C. § 866(d)(2) to correct an unconstitutional firearms ban annotated after entry of judgment .