ALLcrimesfood&drugstaxestelecomcommercehealthconservationtransportationagricultureveteransbrowse all titles »
0

10 U.S.C. § 1182Boards of inquiry

submitted 46 years ago by Pub. L. 96-513 to r/title-10-ARMED-FORCES · 761 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

This section governs boards of inquiry that decide whether certain officers should remain on active duty. It requires fair hearings, sets rules for recommendations and leave, and limits when an officer who was retained may face another retention proceeding.

(a) The Secretary of the concerned military department must convene boards of inquiry at the times and places the Secretary sets. The boards receive evidence and make findings and recommendations about whether an officer required under section 1181 to show cause for staying on active duty should stay. Each board must have at least three officers qualified under section 1187. (b) A board must give each officer required to show cause under section 1181 a fair and impartial hearing. (c) (1) If the board decides that the officer failed to establish that the officer should stay on active duty, it must recommend to the concerned Secretary that the officer not be retained. (2) Under regulations of the concerned Secretary, an officer who receives that recommendation may be required to take leave while the case under this chapter is completed. The officer may have to begin leave after receiving the board’s report, including its recommendation for removal, and after any period allowed for rebuttal expires. Leave may continue until the concerned Secretary completes action on the case, or may end earlier. (d) (1) (A) If the board decides the officer should be retained, the case is closed unless the board substantiated a basis for separation and, after the service chief recommends it, the military-department Secretary decides that the retention recommendation is clearly erroneous in light of the evidence, is a miscarriage of justice, and is inconsistent with the service’s best interests. In that situation, the Secretary may separate the officer after giving written reasons. (B) The officer must be notified and given a chance to submit matters for the Secretary to consider. The Secretary must review whether the recommendation is clearly contrary to the record’s substantial weight of evidence and whether the officer’s conduct discredits the Service, harms good order and discipline, and harms duty performance. (C) The power to separate under this section is reserved for unusual cases in which separation is essential to justice, discipline, and proper service administration. (2) The power to order administrative separation after a board recommends retaining an officer may be delegated only to a civilian military-department official appointed by the President with the Senate’s advice and consent. The least favorable characterization in such a case is general, under honorable conditions. (3) An officer required to show cause under section 1181(a), and found under paragraph (1) to have established that the officer should be retained, may not again be required to show cause under that subsection during the 1-year period beginning on the determination date. (4) (A) Subject to subparagraph (B), an officer required to show cause under section 1181(b), and found under paragraph (1) to have established that the officer should be retained, may again be required to show cause at any time. (B) If that officer was later retained, the officer may not again be required to show cause under section 1181(b) solely because of conduct involved in the earlier proceeding, unless the board’s findings or recommendations were found to have been obtained by fraud or collusion.
the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain
(a)

The Secretary of the military department concerned shall convene boards of inquiry at such times and places as the Secretary may prescribe to receive evidence and make findings and recommendations as to whether an officer who is required under section 1181 of this title to show cause for retention on active duty should be retained on active duty. Each board of inquiry shall be composed of not less than three officers having the qualifications prescribed by section 1187 of this title.

(b)

A board of inquiry shall give a fair and impartial hearing to each officer required under section 1181 of this title to show cause for retention on active duty.

(c)
(1)

If a board of inquiry determines that the officer has failed to establish that he should be retained on active duty, it shall recommend to the Secretary concerned that the officer not be retained on active duty.

(2)

Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, an officer as to whom a board of inquiry makes a recommendation under paragraph (1) that the officer not be retained on active duty may be required to take leave pending the completion of the officer’s case under this chapter. The officer may be required to begin such leave at any time following the officer’s receipt of the report of the board of inquiry, including the board’s recommendation for removal from active duty, and the expiration of any period allowed for submission by the officer of a rebuttal to that report. The leave may be continued until the date on which action by the Secretary concerned on the officer’s case is completed or may be terminated at any earlier time.

(d)
(1)
(A)

If a board of inquiry determines that an officer should be retained, the officer’s case is closed unless the board substantiated a basis for separation and, upon recommendation from the service chief, the Secretary of the military department determines that the board’s retention recommendation is clearly erroneous in light of the evidence considered by the board, a miscarriage of justice, and inconsistent with the best interest of the service. In such cases, the Secretary of the military department may separate the officer after providing a written justification of the decision to separate.

(B)

An officer considered for separation under this section must be notified and afforded the opportunity to present matters for the Secretary of the military department to consider when making the separation determination. The Secretary of the military department shall review the case to determine whether the retention recommendation of the board is clearly contrary to the substantial weight of the evidence in the record and whether the officer’s conduct discredits the Service, adversely affects good order and discipline, and adversely affects the officer’s performance of duty.

(C)

Exercise of authority to separate an officer under this section shall be reserved for unusual cases where such action is essential to the interests of justice, discipline, and proper administration of the service.

(2)

Authority to direct administrative separation after a board of inquiry’s recommendation to retain an officer may only be delegated to a civilian official within a military department appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The least favorable characterization in such cases will be general (under honorable conditions).

(3)

An officer who is required to show cause for retention on active duty under subsection (a) of section 1181 of this title and who is determined under paragraph (1) to have established that he should be retained on active duty may not again be required to show cause for retention on active duty under such subsection within the one-year period beginning on the date of that determination.

(4)
(A)

Subject to subparagraph (B), an officer who is required to show cause for retention on active duty under subsection (b) of section 1181 of this title and who is determined under paragraph (1) to have established that he should be retained on active duty may again be required to show cause for retention at any time.

(B)

An officer who has been required to show cause for retention on active duty under subsection (b) of section 1181 of this title and who is thereafter retained on active duty may not again be required to show cause for retention on active duty under such subsection solely because of conduct which was the subject of the previous proceedings, unless the findings or recommendations of the board of inquiry that considered his case are determined to have been obtained by fraud or collusion.

Source credit: (Added Pub. L. 96–513, title I, § 110, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2872; amended Pub. L. 105–261, div. A, title V, § 503(b)(1), Oct. 17, 1998, 112 Stat. 2003; Pub. L. 106–398, § 1 [[div. A], title X, § 1087(d)(2)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–292; Pub. L. 107–314, div. A, title V, § 506(a), Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2534; Pub. L. 118–159, div. A, title V, § 508, Dec. 23, 2024, 138 Stat. 1871.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit
  • 1980Enacted · Pub. L. 96-513 · 94 Stat. 2872
  • 1998Amended · Pub. L. 105-261 · 112 Stat. 2003
  • 2000Amended · Pub. L. 106-398 · 114 Stat. 1654, 1654
  • 2002Amended · Pub. L. 107-314 · 116 Stat. 2534
  • 2024Amended · Pub. L. 118-159 · 138 Stat. 1871

A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by Pub. L. 96-513 on 1980-12-12.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

0/280

no arguments yet — make the first case