1. Did the Court of Appeals commit constitutional error in holding that In re Navy Chaplaincy's denial of Petitioners' systemic challenges to the Navy promotion procedures also foreclosed Petitioners' individual claims of retaliation, constructive discharge and interference with religious speech when the retaliation claims had never been reviewed and Inspector General investigations showed board members used promotion board procedures as tools for anonymous retaliation?

2. Did the Court of Appeals unlawfully deny Petitioners judicial review of a colorable constitutional claim when it held res judicata also applied to the Chaplaincy's denial of Petitioners' discovery?

Did the Court of Appeals commit constitutional error in holding that In re Navy Chaplaincy's denial of Petitioners' systemic challenges to the Navy promotion procedures also foreclosed Petitioners' individual claims of retaliation, constructive discharge and interference with religious speech