Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by a former lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force, who sought to challenge her conviction by a general court-martial for fraternization under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The conviction, which included a reprimand, monetary forfeiture, and base restriction, was upheld by the Judge Advocate General, and further review by the Court of Military Appeals was not pursued. Green filed a legal action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, claiming constitutional violations regarding due process and notice of charges. Her complaint asserted jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361, and 2201, and centered on the alleged lack of proper notice and exclusion of evidence. The district court dismissed the case, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as Green failed to raise the constitutional issues in military court, constituting a waiver of her right to present them in federal court. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, emphasizing that constitutional claims not raised in military courts can't be later asserted in collateral proceedings without demonstrating good cause. The case underscores the legal principle that military defendants must exhaust military remedies before seeking relief in civilian courts.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application and Waiver in Military Justice Systemsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Green's application to the Judge Advocate General should have included constitutional claims; failure to do so was considered a waiver.
Reasoning: Green's application for relief to the Judge Advocate General should have included the constitutional issues from her complaint to potentially receive relief within the military judicial system.
Collateral Attack on Military Convictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that constitutional claims not raised in military courts cannot be considered in federal courts unless good cause is shown.
Reasoning: The court affirmed that claims not presented in military courts cannot be considered in a district court for collateral proceedings unless good cause is shown.
Exclusion of Evidence and Constitutional Errorsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Green argued constitutional error due to exclusion of evidence, but the courts found these were not substantial constitutional issues.
Reasoning: Although the military judge's exclusion of evidence was noted in Green's application, it did not constitute a substantial constitutional issue.
Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361, and 2201subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found it had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 but dismissed the case because Green did not properly raise her constitutional claims in military court.
Reasoning: The court found it had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 but determined that Green had waived her right to present her constitutional claims in federal court by failing to bring them before the Judge Advocate General.
Waiver of Constitutional Claims in Military Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Green waived her right to bring constitutional claims in federal court by not presenting them to the Judge Advocate General during military proceedings.
Reasoning: Consequently, the district court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over her action because Green waived her right to collaterally attack her court-martial conviction by not raising constitutional violations at the military level.