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. § 1182

Boards of inquiry

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(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.(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.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2024—Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 118–159, § 508(1), amended par. (1) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (1) read as follows: “If a board of inquiry determines that the officer has established that he should be retained on active duty, the officer’s case is closed.”

Subsec. (d)(2) to (4). Pub. L. 118–159, § 508(2), (3), added par. (2) and redesignated former pars. (2) and (3) as (3) and (4), respectively.

2002—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 107–314 designated existing provisions as par. (1) and added par. (2).

2000—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 106–398 made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 105–261, § 503(b)(1). See 1998 Amendment note below.

1998—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 105–261, § 503(b)(1), as amended by Pub. L. 106–398, substituted “recommend to the Secretary concerned that the officer not be retained on active duty” for “send the record of its proceedings to a board of review convened under section 1183 of this title”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2000 Amendment

Pub. L. 106–398, § 1 [[div. A], title X, § 1087(d)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–292, provided that the amendment made by section 1 [[div. A], title X, § 1087(d)(2)] is effective Oct. 17, 1998, and as if included in the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, Pub. L. 105–261, as enacted.

Effective Date

Section effective Sept. 15, 1981, but the authority to prescribe regulations under this section 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.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Milas v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 704 (Fed. Cl. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Milas v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 704 (Fed. Cl. 1999). “10 U.S.C. § 1182 . Definition of many of the detañed procedures was entrusted to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy, see 10 U.”
Guitard v. U.S. Sec'y of the Navy, 967 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1992). · cites it 3× “Military "Boards of Inquiry" are convened “at such times and places as the Secretary may prescribe to receive evidence and make findings and recommendations" regarding whether the officer in question has met the burden of showing cause for his or her retention on active duty…”
Kindred v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 106 (Fed. Cl. 1998). · cites it 2× “If the records support “by a preponderance of the evidence” the conclusion that misconduct occurred, CHNAVPERS or DC/S (M & RA) refers the case to a Board of Inquiry (BOI) under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 1182 . SECNAVINST 1920.6A, Enclosure (8), ¶ 1(b)(1)(a) (March 17, 1993).”
Barnes v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 204 (Fed. Cl. 2003). “10 U.S.C. § 1182 (d)(1) provides: "If a board of inquiry determines that the officer has established that he should be retained on active duty, the officer’s case is closed.”
Richenberg v. Perry, 909 F. Supp. 1303 (D. Neb. 1995). “The authority for the convening of a Board of Inquiry is premised on 10 U.S.C. § 1182 . The Board of Inquiry convened on June 20-21, 1994.”
House v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 342 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “13, 1999); see also 10 U.S.C. § 1182 . Thereafter, he was counseled by several peers and superiors that his career was finished and that he should seek retirement.”
Doe v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 85 (Fed. Cl. 1996). “Contentions of the Parties In support of his motion for summaiy judgment, plaintiff contends that he was denied a “fair and impartial hearing” by the discharge board, in violation of 10 U.S.C. § 1182 (b) and AFR 11-31111 and AFR 36-2, If 7-1.”
Marin v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 129 (Fed. Cl. 1998). “10 U.S.C. § 1182 (a). The BOI is required to give “a fair and impartial hearing” to an officer brought before the board.”
Ferrari v. United States, No. 3:19-cv-05996 (W.D. Wash. June 5, 2020). · cites it 2× “6 Ferrari was ordered to appear before a Board of Inquiry, which was charged with making 7 a recommendation to the Secretary of the Navy as to whether Ferrari should be retained in active 8 duty service pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1182 (b). Dkt. 38-6. Under 10 U.”
Exnicios v. United States, No. 17-1424 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 11, 2018). “” 10 U.S.C. § 1182 (2012). “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,” and, “[i]f a board of inquiry determines that the officer has failed to establish that he…”
Sullivan v. United States, No. 18-1862 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 21, 2022). “It only notes a general requirement for a fair and impartial hearing as set out in 10 U.S.C. § 1182 (b), Army Regulation 600-8-24 ¶ 4-6(a), and DoDI 1332.”
Lewis v. Del Toro, No. 1:23-cv-01074 (E.D. Va. June 28, 2024). “10 U.S.C. § 1182 (a). Congress delegated to the Secretaries of each Military Department the authority to promulgate regulations concerning the procedural operation of these BOIs.”
Show all 14 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.