U.S. Code » Title 10 » Subtitle Subtitle A— General Military Law › Part PART II— PERSONNEL › Chapter CHAPTER 60— SEPARATION OF REGULAR OFFICERS FOR SUBSTANDARD PERFORMANCE OF DUTY OR FOR CERTAIN OTHER REASONS

10 U.S.C. § 1181

Authority to establish procedures to consider the separation of officers for substandard performance of duty and for certain other reasons

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Subject to such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, the Secretary of the military department concerned shall prescribe, by regulation, procedures for the review at any time of the record of any commissioned officer (other than a commissioned warrant officer or a retired officer) of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, Regular Marine Corps, or Regular Space Force to determine whether such officer shall be required, because his performance of duty has fallen below standards prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, to show cause for his retention on active duty.(b) Subject to such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, the Secretary of the military department concerned shall prescribe, by regulation, procedures for the review at any time of the record of any commissioned officer (other than a commissioned warrant officer or a retired officer) of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, Regular Marine Corps, or Regular Space Force to determine whether such officer should be required, because of misconduct, because of moral or professional dereliction, or because his retention is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security, to show cause for his retention on active duty.(Added Pub. L. 96–513, title I, § 110, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2872; amended Pub. L. 98–525, title V, § 524(b)(1), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2524; Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title IX, § 924(b)(4)(J), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 3822.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2021—Pub. L. 116–283 substituted “Regular Marine Corps, or Regular Space Force” for “or Regular Marine Corps” in subsecs. (a) and (b).

1984—Pub. L. 98–525 substituted “Authority to establish procedures to consider the separation of officers for substandard performance of duty and for certain other reasons” for “Authority to convene boards of officers to consider separation of officers for substandard performance of duty or for certain other reasons” in section catchline.

Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 98–525 amended subsecs. (a) and (b) generally, substituting “Subject to such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, the Secretary of the military department concerned shall prescribe, by regulation, procedures for the review at any time of the record” for “Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the military department concerned may at any time convene a board of officers to review the record”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1984 Amendment

Pub. L. 98–525, title V, § 524(b)(3), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2524, provided that: “The amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (2) [amending this section and the analysis to this chapter] shall take effect on the first day of the first month that begins more than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 19, 1984], but shall not apply to any case in which, before that date, a board of officers has been ordered to convene under the provisions of section 1181 of title 10, United States Code, as in effect before that date.”

Effective Date

Section effective Sept. 15, 1981, but the authority to prescribe regulations under this chapter effective on Dec. 12, 1980, see section 701 of Pub. L. 96–513, set out as an Effective Date of 1980 Amendment note under section 101 of this title.

Transition Provisions Under Defense Officer Personnel Management Act

For provisions to prevent extinction or premature termination of rights, duties, penalties, or proceedings that existed or were begun prior to the effective date of Pub. L. 96–513 and otherwise to allow for an orderly transition to the system of officer personnel management put in place under Pub. L. 96–513, see section 601 et seq. of Pub. L. 96–513, set out as a note under section 611 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1991–2022 · leading case: Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529 (1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529 (1999). “The Air Force initiated an administrative separation proceeding against respondent, see 10 U. S. C. § 1181 , which has been deferred pending resolution of this case.”
Milas v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 704 (Fed. Cl. 1999). · cites it 2× “Definition of many of the detañed procedures was entrusted to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy, see 10 U.S.C. § 1181 (b), but Congress did establish specific minimum procedural requirements.”
Brezler v. Mills, 220 F. Supp. 3d 303 (E.D.N.Y 2016). “Applicable are three sections of the Únited States Code, Title Ten, governing the involuntary separation of officers from the armed forces: 10 U.S.C. §§ 1181 ,1182 and 14908. Together, Sections 1182 and 14903 provide that the “military department concerned” (here, the Navy) must…”
Matthew H. Sawyer v. The United States, 930 F.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “This scheme is similar to 10 U.S.C. §§ 1181 and 1184 which say the Secretary “may” separate officers for misconduct or *1581 poor performance.”
Guitard v. U.S. Sec'y of the Navy, 967 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1992). · cites it 3× “The Navy elected not to retry Guitard before a court-martial but instead convened a three-officer Board of Inquiry pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1181 et seq. (1988). 1 The Board of Inquiry unanimously found Gui-tard guilty of military misconduct by refusing to follow a lawful order to…”
Brezler v. Mills, 86 F. Supp. 3d 208 (E.D.N.Y 2015). “Applicable here are three sections of the United States Code, Title Ten, governing the involuntary separation of officers from the armed forces: 10 U.S.C. § 1181 , § 1182 and § 14903. Together, Sections 1182 and 14903 provide that the “military department concerned” (here, the…”
Kindred v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 106 (Fed. Cl. 1998). “Under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 1181 (b), naval regulations direct that when an officer does not “maintain required standards of .”
Holley v. United States, 32 Fed. Cl. 265 (Fed. Cl. 1994). “” Defendant maintains that plaintiff was not discharged pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1181 et seq., but was discharged pursuant to 10 U.”
Marin v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 129 (Fed. Cl. 1998). “In this instance, the BOI was convened pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1181 (b). This section permits the BOI to review the ease of an officer if that officer has committed acts including misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or if his retention on active duty is not “clearly…”
Exnicios v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018). “Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1181 (a) (2012): Subject to such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, the Secretary of the military department concerned shall prescribe, by regulation, procedures for the review at any time of the record of any commissioned officer…”
United States v. Captain ELMO E. VANCE (A.C.C.A. 2020). “See generally 10 U.S.C. §§ 1181 , 7013, and 14902. The distinction between these cases lies in what the CA could or should have done.”
United States v. Second Lieutenant KEVIN M. FURTH (A.C.C.A. 2020). “See generally 10 U.S.C. §§ 1181 , 7013, 14902,”
Show all 15 citing cases →
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.