COURT MARTIAL COLLATERAL ATTACKS

Service members may collaterally attack their court-martial convictions in federal courts under limited circumstances. They may seek related back-pay, allowances, and benefits as well. Collateral attacks on court-martials typically involve indirect attacks on the court-martial conviction that are not a direct appeal. There are also statutes of limitations that may limit relief.

In order to be successful in collaterally attacking one’s court-martial conviction, it is important to show that the military either had no jurisdiction or that there was some other equally fundamental Constitutional violation of due process. 

As the Supreme Court of the United States explained in United States v. Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348 (1968), some of the Constitutional violations may occur when ‘[a]part from trials conducted in violation of express constitutional mandates, a constitutionally unfair trial takes place only where the barriers and safeguards are so relaxed or forgotten that the proceeding is more a spectacle or trial by ordeal than a disciplined contest’.

Which collateral attacks on court-martials were successful?

Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738 (1975) – being court-martialed for not service-connected offense (UCMJ Article 134 – substance abuse) – not successful

Schneider v. United States, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 26229 (1998) – having one of the panel members during a court-martial of the rank lower than the accused – not successful

Moore v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 146 (2004) – alleging ineffective assistance of counsel where the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals has already meaningfully considered this challenge – not successful

Bergdahl v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127510 (2023) – where the military judge’s impartiality was in jeopardy due to the judge’s failure to disclose his employment application, the Court granted partial relief.

You can read more here and here.