847 F. Supp. 2d 68
D.D.C.2012Background
- Plaintiff David P. Christian, pro se, sued the Secretary of the Army and ABCMR seeking reinstatement, promotion, or upgrade of his dishonorable discharge.
- He was court-martialed in 2001 for sodomy with a child and related offenses, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge and confinement for 16 years.
- The convening authority approved the sentence with minor adjustments; LWOP was at issue due to later MCM updates incorporating Article 56a.
- The Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed; the CAAF and Supreme Court denied certiorari on related LWOP issues in 2007.
- Christian pursued habeas relief in 2008; federal courts held LWOP was authorized as of 1997, not dependent on MCM edits.
- He then pursued relief before ABCMR, which denied upgrading his discharge; ADRB determined it lacked authority to review such a case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was LWOP authorized when offense occurred? | Christian argues LWOP was not authorized at the time, making plea involuntary. | Defendants contend LWOP was authorized by Article 56a since 1997, applicable to offenses after 1997. | LWOP authorized; precludes plaintiff's relapse claims under res judicata. |
| Whether issue preclusion bars relitigating LWOP-related arguments here? | Plaintiff asserts fresh review of his sentence and plea | LWOP issue already decided against Christian in habeas and appellate courts | Yes; issue preclusion bars LWOP-based claims. |
| Are ABCMR/ADRB authority or mercy powers sufficient to upgrade the discharge here? | Board could upgrade or reinstate based on injustices from the court-martial | CM-related corrections are limited to clemency and do not rewrite appellate outcomes | Precluded by res judicata; merits not reached. |
| Do other asserted constitutional or due-process arguments survive? | Alleges due-process flaws and coerced plea | Arguments previously litigated and resolved; do not warrant relief | Precluded; court grants summary judgment on res judicata grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (establishes standard for claim and issue preclusion)
- Yamaha Corp. of Amer. v. United States, 961 F.2d 245 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (defines issue preclusion scope and requirements)
- McCord v. Bailey, 636 F.2d 606 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (discusses preclusion implications for nonparties)
- Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1983) (preclusion as a defense; nonmutual offensive use)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (principles of claim and issue preclusion)
- Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748 (1996) (delegation of legislative power over punishments)