Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has statutory authority to hold that a conviction is factually insufficient under 10 U.S.C. § 867(c)(1)(C)

is : Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has statutory authority to hold that a conviction is factually insufficient under 10 U.S.C. § 867(c)(1)(C). 2. In courts -martial, the entry of j udgment (E OJ) under 10 U.S.C. § 860c is the final judgment, marking the beginning of the post -trial process. In the Air Force, a First Indorsement memorandum summarize s criminal indexing requirements. It reflects a legal determination about whether 18 U.S.C. § 922 applies to the convicted servicemember and effectuates a restriction of their Second Amendment rights. Despite statutory authority under Article 66(d)(2), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(d)(2), to correct post -judgment processing errors , the C AAF decided that military courts cannot correct indicated firearms prohibitions. The second 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.