32 C.F.R. § 75.4
Policy
It is DoD policy that:
(a) The EFMP identifies family members with special needs, enrolls sponsors in the program, and participates in the coordination of assignments for active duty Service members in order for the special needs of family members to be considered during the assignment process.
(b) Active duty Service members whose families include a member with special needs must enroll in the EFMP to ensure their family member's special needs are considered during the assignment process.
(c) The special needs of a civilian employee's family member will not be considered in the selection of a civilian for an overseas position.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1977–2006 · leading case: Gilbert P. Hager, M.D., Etc. v. Sec'y of the Air Force & Commanding Gen., Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, 938 F.2d 1449 (1st Cir. 1991).
Gilbert P. Hager, M.D., Etc. v. Sec'y of the Air Force & Commanding Gen., Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, 938 F.2d 1449 (1st Cir. 1991). “6 IV B2, which parallelled 32 C.F.R. § 75.4 (a)(1), conscientious objection by a member of the military could not be considered if it arose prior to entry into the service.”
Chapin v. Webb, 701 F. Supp. 970 (D. Conn. 1988). “1; cf 32 C.F.R. § 75.4 (a) (conscientious objector request “will be approved to the extent practicable and equitable” within limitations imposed by regulations).”
Leonard v. Dep't of the Navy, 786 F. Supp. 82 (D. Me. 1992). “” Petitioner’s Memorandum at 19 (citing 32 C.F.R. § 75.4 (a)(1) (1990); Bates, 413 F.”
Reynolds v. Dukakis, 441 F. Supp. 646 (D. Mass. 1977). “32 C.F.R. § 75.4 (1976). It should be noted at this point that the federal regulatory scheme makes available an honorable or a general discharge as distinguished from a dishonorable discharge to those servicemen on active duty who are administratively discharged for drug abuse…”
Aguayo v. Harvey, 445 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D.D.C. 2006). “The Court does not agree and finds that the DACORB properly concluded that Aguayo did not demonstrate grounds for discharge by clear and convincing evidence.”
— 32 C.F.R. § 75.4(a)(1) — 1 case
Aguayo v. Harvey, 445 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D.D.C. 2006). “The Court does not agree and finds that the DACORB properly concluded that Aguayo did not demonstrate grounds for discharge by clear and convincing evidence.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.