10 U.S.C. § 1214
Right to full and fair hearing
No member of the armed forces may be retired or separated for physical disability without a full and fair hearing if the member demands it. The Secretary concerned may require submission of a statement of contention as part of the demand.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case: Peterson v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 196 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
Peterson v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 196 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “Section 1214 provides: “No member of the armed forces may be retired or separated for physical disability without a full and fair hearing if he demands it.” Plaintiffs section 1214 claim challenges only the assignment of his disability rating, which impacted whether he should be…”
Petri v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 537 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “Petri by denying him a full and fair hearing prior to his separation from active duty, in violation of 10 U.S.C. § 1214 (2006), thereby entitling him to pay under 37 U.”
Stein v. United States, 121 Fed. Cl. 248 (Fed. Cl. 2015). “§ 1201 ; 10 U.S.C. § 1214 . OPINION HORN, J. FINDINGS OF FACT Plaintiff Kevin M.”
Lechliter v. United States, 70 Fed. Cl. 536 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “He also argues that 10 U.S.C. § 1214 (2000), which provides for a hearing, if requested, for service mem *544 bers who are found unfit for duty but does not provide for a hearing if a service member is found fit for duty, is unconstitutional on due process and equal protection…”
Eurell v. United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 273 (Ct. Cl. 1977). “The plaintiff also argues that his claim to a full and fair hearing under 10 U.S.C. § 1214 (1970) on his disability separation is a statutory right dependent on his military record and the law, and independent of the action of any board or agency, and is therefore a continuing…”
Grooms v. United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 651 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “Consideration of a case by a formal PEB satisfies the soldier’s legal right to a “full and fair hearing” set out in 10 U.S.C. § 1214 . See DoDI, Instr. 1332.”
Candelaria v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 266 (Ct. Cl. 1984). “The Administrative Discharge Board which the Air Force Reserve Personnel Center offered plaintiff in its letter of April 18, 1978 did not meet the statutory requirements of 10 U.S.C. § 1214 , counsel asserted, because that Board was not authorized to evaluate whether plaintiff’s…”
Schmidt v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 111 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “In Pope , the United States Claims Court noted that “[i]t is the court's opinion that [ 10 U.S.C. § 1214 (2006) ] expressly invites the claimant to seek a reopening of an informal decision at a later time, and thus precludes any informal PEB decision from being final.”
Doe v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 165 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “6 On February 24, 1999, Plaintiff requested a “full and fair hearing,” pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1214 , 7 and filed a Letter of Exception contesting the Psychiatric Resident’s January 13, 1999 Narrative Summary, the MEB recommendation, and the IPEB findings.”
Williams v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 263 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “¶¶ 35-36; see also 10 U.S.C. § 1214 ; 37 U.S.C. § 204 . The government has moved to dismiss Mr.”
Gant v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 311 (Fed. Cl. 2004). “” 10 U.S.C. § 1214 prohibits the Secretary of the Navy from retiring or separating a servicemember for physical disability without a formal hearing unless waived.”
Quailes v. United States, 25 Cl. Ct. 659 (Ct. Cl. 1992). “Plaintiff asserts that his separation is improper for the following reasons: 1) The separation violates controlling Navy statutes 10 U.S.C. §§ 1214 , 1218 (1988), guaranteeing members of the armed forces separated for physical disability the right to a full and fair hearing and…”
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.