10 U.S.C. § 7321 — Mandatory retirement: Superintendent of the United States Military Academy; waiver authority
submitted 27 years ago by Pub. L. 106-65 to r/title-10-ARMED-FORCES · 176 words · no verdicts yet
A translation hasn’t been published for this section yet. The official text below is complete and authoritative.
Upon the termination of the detail of an officer* to the position of Superintendent of the United States Military Academy, the Secretary of the Army* shall retire the officer under any provision of this chapter under which that officer is eligible to retire.
The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirement in subsection (a) for good cause. In each case in which such a waiver is granted for an officer, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a written notification of the waiver, with a statement of the reasons supporting the decision that the officer not retire, and a written notification of the intent of the President to nominate the officer for reassignment. In the event a waiver under this subsection is granted, the subsequent nomination and appointment of such officer having served as Superintendent of the Academy to a further assignment in lieu of retirement shall be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.
Source credit: (Added Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title V, § 532(a)(1)(A), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 602, § 3921; amended Pub. L. 108–375, div. A, title V, § 541(a)(1), (c)(1)(A), Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 1902, 1903; renumbered § 7321, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, § 808(b)(12), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1838; Pub. L. 117–263, div. A, title V, § 509(a), Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 2560.)
- 1999Enacted · Pub. L. 106-65 · 113 Stat. 602
- 2004Amended · Pub. L. 108-375 · 118 Stat. 1902, 1903
- 2018Amended · Pub. L. 115-232 · 132 Stat. 1838
- 2022Amended · Pub. L. 117-263 · 136 Stat. 2560
A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by Pub. L. 106-65 on 1999-10-05.
all 0 arguments · sorted by: best
no arguments yet — make the first case