10 U.S.C. § 1413
Repealed. Pub. L. 108–136, div. A, title VI, § 641(b), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1514]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case: Lechliter v. Dep't of Def., 371 F. Supp. 2d 589 (D. Del. 2005).
Lechliter v. Dep't of Def., 371 F. Supp. 2d 589 (D. Del. 2005). “Background 1 On October 5, 1999, Congress passed 10 U.S.C. § 1413 (“ § 1413”), which related to “special compensation for certain severely disabled retirees” (“SCSD”) and which was repealed effective Jan.”
Bandini v. Bandini, 935 N.E.2d 253 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “" 10 U.S.C. § 1413¥(b)(2). The statute provides that CRSC payments "are not retired pay.”
Lechliter v. Rumsfeld, 182 F. App'x 113 (3rd Cir. 2006). “In April 2003, Lechliter submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Defense Directorate for Freedom of Information and Security Review (“DFOISR”) seeking “all [Department of Defense (“DoD”) ] documents related to the implementation of 10 U.S.C. § 1413 and its amendments.” 1…”
Martin v. United States, 133 Fed. Cl. 248 (Fed. Cl. 2017). “For example, the Board did not feel that an injury suffered by a Navy diver helping salvage a ' civil war relic would qualify under 10 U.S.C. § 1413 ; this despite the listing of “diving duty” in the DOD guidance as an example of hazardous duty.”
Pope v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 737 (Fed. Cl. 2007). “*741 Plaintiff also argues that he is entitled to combat-related special compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413 (a) because his car accident of October 19, 1999, occurred during a time of war.”
Hillard v. Hillard, 733 S.E.2d 176 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012). “In December 2002, Congress enacted 10 U.S.C. § 1413 (a), which created Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) as a tax-free disability benefit available to veterans who suffered a combat-related disability as a direct result of armed conflict, training exercises that…”
Lechliter v. Sec'y Def., 181 F. App'x 266 (3rd Cir. 2006). “Here, Lechliter seeks what he believed he was entitled to under the 10 U.S.C. § 1413 . As we have indicated, where a plaintiff “seeks only that to which [he] is entitled .”
Jody Bart Randolph v. Kerry Ann Sheehy (Va. Ct. App. 2023). “” 10 U.S.C. § 1413 (a)(g). Because the USFSPA allows courts to divide only “disposable retired pay” as marital property, federal law preempts a state court from treating CRSC payments as marital property.”
Smith v. United States (N.D. Fla. 2025). “Plaintiff also seeks relief under 10 U.S.C. § 1413 “to allow or create an amendment for sexual assault victims to qualify for concurrent retirement disability pay.”
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.