Notes of Decisions
Cited in
80
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case:
United States v. Hart, 66 M.J. 273 (C.A.A.F. 2008).
United States v. Hart, 66 M.J. 273 (C.A.A.F. 2008).
· cites it 37× “Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1168 (a) (2000), a servicemember may not be discharged from active duty until his discharge certificate “and his final pay or a substantial part of that pay, are ready for delivery to him.”
Spehr v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 69 (Fed. Cl. 2001).
· cites it 9× “Specifically, the certificate was not accompanied by Spehr’s “final pay” within the meaning of 10 U.S.C. § 1168 . That statute provides that “[a] member of an armed force may not be discharged or released from active duty until his discharge certificate____ and his final pay or…”
Soto v. Commonwealth, 139 S.W.3d 827 (Ky. 2004).
· cites it 4× “However, a DD Form 214 is an official record of a public agency, 10 U.S.C. § 1168 ; 32 C.F.R. § 45.1 , thus, its contents were admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule.”
United States v. Steven Green, 654 F.3d 637 (6th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 3× “Although UCMJ does not define the point in time when discharge occurs, courts look to 10 U.S.C. §§ 1168 (a) and 1169 to determine the requirements to effectuate a discharge.”
Matthews v. United States, 750 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
· cites it 3× “Matthews argues, as he did before the Court of Federal Claims, that he was never properly discharged from the Navy because the requirements of 10 U.S.C. § 1168 were not followed, and that the Department of Defense Form 214 that the Navy re-issued to him is fraudulent.”
United States v. Harmon, 63 M.J. 98 (C.A.A.F. 2006).
· cites it 4× “” 10 U.S.C. § 1168 (a) (2000). To effectuate an early discharge, there must be: (1) a delivery of a valid discharge certificate; (2) a final accounting of pay; and (3) the undergoing of a “clearing” process as required under appropriate service regulations to separate the member…”
Lowe v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 218 (Fed. Cl. 2007).
· cites it 4× “In determining the date that plaintiff was released from active duty, the Court is guided by 10 U.S.C. § 1168 (a) (2006), which states clearly and unambiguously that “[a] member of an armed force may not be .”
United States v. Nettles, 74 M.J. 289 (C.A.A.F. 2015).
· cites it 5× “This is based on a civil personnel statute, 10 U.S.C. § 1168 (a) (2012): A member of an armed force may not be discharged or released from active duty until his discharge certificate or certificate of release from active duty, respectively, and his final pay or a substantial…”
Labonte v. United States, 43 F.4th 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
· cites it 4× “Pursu- ant to 10 U.S.C. § 1168 (a), “[a] member of an armed force may not be discharged or released from active duty until his discharge certificate or certificate of release from active duty, respectively, .”
United States v. King, 27 M.J. 327 (1989).
· cites it 3× “10 USC § 1168 (a). No regular enlisted member of an armed force may be discharged before his term of service expires, except— (1) as prescribed by the Secretary concerned; (2) by sentence of a general or special court martial; or (3) as otherwise provided by law.”
United States v. Cole, 24 M.J. 18 (1987).
· cites it 3× “Relying on 10 U.S.C. § 1168 , he then argues that receipt of the latter certificate, even if fraudulently induced, had no legal effect on the termination of his active-duty status.”
United States v. Howard, 20 M.J. 353 (1985).
· cites it 2× “Discharges are governed by 10 U.S.C. § 1168 (a), which states: (a) A member of an armed force may not be discharged or released from active duty until his discharge certificate or certificate of release from active duty, respectively, and his final pay or a substantial part of…”
10 U.S.C. § 1168(a): 3 cases
United States v. Hart, 66 M.J. 273 (C.A.A.F. 2008).
“Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1168 (a) (2000), a servicemember may not be discharged from active duty until his discharge certificate “and his final pay or a substantial part of that pay, are ready for delivery to him.”
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.