Under Articles 71 and 76 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), a punitive discharge may not be executed until there is a final judgment as to the legality of the proceedings, and finality attaches only to discharges carried into execution following the review required by law. In this noncapital case, however, the Army issued its order purporting to execute petitioner's discharge erroneously in December 2024, even though direct review did not end until this Court denied certiorari on June 2, 2025. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) nevertheless held that the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (Army Court) lacked jurisdiction to entertain petitioner's habeas corpus petition because of the erroneously issued certificate, determining that the error made the case final.

Whether a Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) loses jurisdiction to entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus when the government erroneously issues an order purporting to execute a punitive discharge before direct review is complete, or whether jurisdiction persists until direct review has ended and the punitive discharge is thereafter lawfully executed under Articles 71 and 76, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 871, 876 (2012).

Whether a Court of Criminal Appeals loses jurisdiction to entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus when the government erroneously issues an order purporting to execute a punitive discharge before direct review is complete, or whether jurisdiction persists until direct review has ended and the punitive discharge is thereafter lawfully executed under Articles 71 and 76, UCMJ