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. § 1185

Rights and procedures

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, each officer required under section 1181 of this title to show cause for retention on active duty—(1) shall be notified in writing, at least 30 days before the hearing of his case by a board of inquiry, of the reasons for which he is being required to show cause for retention on active duty;(2) shall be allowed a reasonable time, as determined by the board of inquiry, to prepare his showing of cause for his retention on active duty;(3) subject to subsection (c), shall be allowed to appear in person and to be represented by counsel at proceedings before the board of inquiry; and(4) shall be allowed full access to, and shall be furnished copies of, records relevant to his case, except that the board of inquiry shall withhold any record that the Secretary concerned determines should be withheld in the interest of national security.(b) When a record is withheld under subsection (a)(4), the officer whose case is under consideration shall, to the extent that the interest of national security permits, be furnished a summary of the record so withheld.(c) The Secretary concerned may determine that, in exceptional circumstances, the appearance of an officer before the proceedings of a board of inquiry may be via means other than in person.(Added Pub. L. 96–513, title I, § 110, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2874; amended Pub. L. 118–159, div. A, title V, § 509(a), Dec. 23, 2024, 138 Stat. 1872.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2024—Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 118–159, § 509(a)(1), substituted “subject to subsection (c), shall be” for “shall be”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 118–159, § 509(a)(2), added subsec. (c).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective 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 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2022 · leading case: John D. Holley v. United States, 124 F.3d 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
John D. Holley v. United States, 124 F.3d 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “The court observed, and the government does not dispute, that the hearing requirements of these provisions was not met, for § 1185 provides for board of inquiry proceedings and the right of the officer to appear in person at such proceedings: 10 U.S.C. § 1185 . Rights and…”
Milas v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 704 (Fed. Cl. 1999). · cites it 2× “See 10 U.S.C. § 1185 (a). The Secretary for Defense must assure that each officer subjected to adminis *718 trative discharge proceedings be given (1) written notice, (2) a reasonable time to prepare for the Board of Inquiry, (3) an opportunity to appear in person, (4)…”
Holley v. United States, 32 Fed. Cl. 265 (Fed. Cl. 1994). · cites it 2× “It is clear that under 10 U.S.C. § 1185 a Regular Army officer is entitled to a hearing before a Board of Inquiry before that officer can be separated from the service.”
Kindred v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 106 (Fed. Cl. 1998). “10 U.S.C. § 1185 (a)(3); SECNAVINST 1920.”
Andrews v. Webb, 685 F. Supp. 579 (E.D. Va. 1988). “See also 10 U.S.C. § 1185 (1983). 29 . Although the Court decides this matter favorably to the Secretary of the Navy and enters final judgment accordingly, the Court nonetheless directs that counsel for the Secretary of the Navy communicate to him this Court's request that the…”
Marin v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 129 (Fed. Cl. 1998). “10 U.S.C. § 1185 (a)(3). In this instance, the BOI was convened pursuant to 10 U.”
Sullivan v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2022). · cites it 2× “30, and 10 U.S.C. § 1185— and alleges that “[n]one of these requirements were met.”
Williams v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2022). · cites it 2× “Under 22 10 U.S.C. § 1185 (a)(1), “each officer required under section 1181 of this title to show cause for retention on active duty .”
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.