Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

William G. Bolton v. Department of the Navy Board for Correction of Naval Records

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 18-3284 · judgment January 18, 2019

Certiorari denied · June 24, 2019
Pre-decision estimate: 5% cert probability (95% interval 3%–9%)

Before the decision, modestly above the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a circuit split argued in the petition, a petition filed soon after the judgment below, and a Sixth Circuit decision below.

Question presented

  1. The scope of the authority of the United States Navy’s Board for Correction of Naval Records (“Naval Board”) to remove an unjust summary court-martial sentence from a service member’s record, by expungement or by clemency, is in need of clarification by this Court. 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a)(1) was previously interpreted by lower courts to allow the Naval Board to expunge or remove invalid or unjust courts-martial sentences. See, eg., Baxter v. Claytor, 652 F. 2d 181, 185 (D.C. Cir. 1981); Owings v. Secretary of the United States Air Force, 447 F.2d 1245, 1249-50 (D.C. Cir. 1971). In 1983, however, Congress amended 10 U.S.C. § 1552 to streamline and modernize the military justice review system. In doing so, to prevent redundancy, Congress limited the Naval Board’s powers with respect to courts-martial that are “tried or reviewed.” 10 U.S.C. § 1552(f). It is unclear, however, from the relevant legislative history and the text of the amendment, whether any changes were intended to be made to the Naval Board’s powers over non-adversarial summary courts-martial sentences. A summary court-martial is a special disciplinary procedure and, despite the similarities in name, a summary court-martial is a very different process than general courts-martial or special courts-martial. Most significantly, a summary court-martial is a nonadversarial process, unlike general courts-martial or special courts-martial. Further, summary courtsmartial are not considered criminal convictions and are often utilized because they require lesser due process. This Court, in Mittendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25, 31-33

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Thomas Frederick Hull II
Manchester Newman & Bennett LPA

For respondent
Noel John Francisco
Jones Day

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Order
Order list, June 24, 2019 · Certiorari denied

Proceedings

  1. Jun 24 2019
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Jun 04 2019
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2019.
  3. May 22 2019
    Waiver of right of respondent Department of the Navy Board for Correction of Naval Records to respond filed.
  4. Apr 18 2019
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 22, 2019)