U.S. Code » Title 10 » Subtitle Subtitle E— Reserve Components › Part PART II— PERSONNEL GENERALLY › Chapter CHAPTER 1223— RETIRED PAY FOR NON-REGULAR SERVICE

10 U.S.C. § 12740

Eligibility: denial upon certain punitive discharges or dismissals

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
A person who—(1) is convicted of an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (chapter 47 of this title) and whose sentence includes death; or(2) is separated pursuant to sentence of a court-martial with a dishonorable discharge, a bad conduct discharge, or (in the case of an officer) a dismissal,is not eligible for retired pay under this chapter.(Added Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title VI, § 632(a)(1), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 365.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title VI, § 632(b), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 365, provided that: “Section 12740 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to court-martial sentences adjudged after the date of the enactment of this Act [Feb. 10, 1996].”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2000–2011 · leading case: United States v. Webb, 53 M.J. 702 (A.C.C.A. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Webb, 53 M.J. 702 (A.C.C.A. 2000). · cites it 6× “In a case of first impression, appellant asks this court to decree that 10 U.S.C. § 12740 (1996) does not apply to appellant because of the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws and to direct that appellant’s eligibility to receive retired pay is not affected by…”
Loeh v. United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 2 (Fed. Cl. 2002). “Plaintiff expresses particular concern over 10 U.S.C. § 12740 (1) (2000), which provides that a member of a reserve component who is sentenced to dismissal by a court-martial is not eligible for retired pay for non-regular service under 10 U.”
United States v. Niles, 52 M.J. 716 (A.C.C.A. 2000). “10 U.S.C. § 12740 concerns the eligibility of persons with punitive discharges or dismissals for retired pay.”
United States v. Staff Sergeant RODGER S. DANES (A.C.C.A. 2011). “See 10 U.S.C. § 12740 . At appellant’s behest, three sergeants major, a master sergeant, and a sergeant first class each recommended appellant’s retention in the Army and stated that they would unhesitatingly serve and deploy with 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.