Cossio v. Air Force, 527 F. App'x 932

Cossio was court-martialed in 2004 and convicted of larceny, communicating a threat, computer fraud, and identity fraud; he was acquitted of an additional threat charge.
The charges arose from diverting a fellow airman's salary to a Russia charity, unlawfully obtaining the airman’s social security number via a government computer, and threatening to injure him.
Disciplinary records, including two letters of reprimand, an Article 15 demotion, and an Enlisted Performance Report, were admitted at sentencing.
He received 10 months’ confinement, a $750 fine, and a bad conduct discharge; his conviction and discharge were affirmed on direct review by the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
After release, he was court-martialed again for separate conduct and pleaded guilty to conduct unbecoming; the second sentence was time served.
Cossio filed a civil action in district court under the Little Tucker Act challenging the disciplinary records and alleging due processviolations; the district court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for lack of a cognizable due process claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion of remedies for disciplinary records	Cossio waived claims by not raising them at trial or on direct review.	Correction Board cannot overturn court-martial convictions or sentencing; exhaustion required.	Waiver applies; exhaustion satisfied only by appropriate military avenues, not correction board.
Due process in sentencing: admission of sentencing exhibits	Admission of disciplinary records without adequate objection violated due process.	Records were properly admitted; objections would have been futile or waived under R.C.M. 1001 and MRE 403.	No due process violation; claims foreclosed by waivers and the nature of military evidentiary rules.
Collateral attack on court-martial convictions	Challenges to the convictions or sentence on constitutional grounds are permissible collateral attacks.	Corrections Board cannot overturn convictions or amend sentencing judgments; collateral attacks are limited.	Court-martial judgments are subject to narrow collateral review only on constitutional grounds; here none established.
Brady/ coram nobis relief and due process	Brady failure to disclose the victim’s criminal record violated due process; coram nobis should have succeeded.	Prejudice not shown; coram nobis is extraordinary and denial not due process deprivation.	Denials of coram nobis relief do not violate due process; no reversible error shown.

Martinez v. United States, 914 F.2d 1486 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (exhaustion applies to constitutional claims in military system; Corrections Board cannot overturn court-martial outcomes)
Bowling v. United States, 713 F.2d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (finality of court-martial decisions; limits collateral challenges)
Hurick v. Lehman, 782 F.2d 984 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (dismissal of discharge is final; ancillary to the discharge decision)
Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court 1953) (courts may not reevaluate certain military factual determinations on collateral review)
United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (Supreme Court 2009) (extraordinary writ; coram nobis not ordinarily appropriate)
United States v. Holiday, 16 C.M.R. 28 (C.M.R. 1954) (military court evidentiary standards; questions of fact for trial court)