No Red, he won't. Let's just take the charge of Unauthorized Absense. You have two possible defense arguments, one that says you really weren't absent, which would be impossible to argue in this case. And the other would be what's called an "affirmative defense". In other words, you stipulate that you indeed were absent, but you had a "good reason".
Now, what are those "good reasons". Well, it's fairly straight forward, and not entirely dissimilar to affirmative defenses that might be found in a civilian criminal case - things like insanity, or temporary insanity. Another is called a defense of impossibility, as in it was impossible for you to be there because you were hospitalized or incapacitated. A third might be because of duress of some kind, usually to mean the threat of immediate bodily harm by superiors in some way.
There's no way that a presiding officer is going to entertain an affirmative defense based on the eligibility of the POTUS, as such, no discovery motions are going to be granted on such a defense.
Noway huh? That a possible illegal order from the top of the chain of command is not enough for the court to entertain the discovery motion for the defense? I find that highly unlikely, especially if it is the cornerstone of the defendant's case.
What's that saying? ... See you in court.
Two’s in, OldDeckHand. You have it exactly right; however, if I were defending this one, I’d demand that the disobedience of a lawful order charge and spec be addressed before anything else. If the order’s determined to be unlawful, all the other charges go away.
Colonel, USAFR
What happens if she reports as ordered, but also pursues her lawsuit?