Unless retained as provided in section 12646 or 12686 of this title, a captain on the reserve active-status list of the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps or a lieutenant on the reserve active-status list of the Navy who has failed of selection for promotion to the next higher grade for the second time and whose name is not on a list of officers recommended for promotion to the next higher grade and who has not been selected for continuation on the reserve active-status list under section 14701 or 14701a of this title, shall be separated in accordance with section 14513 of this title not later than the first day of the seventh month after the month in which the Secretary concerned releases the promotion results of the board which considered the officer for the second time to the public.
Notes of Decisions
Reilly v. Sec'y of the Navy, 12 F. Supp. 3d 125 (D.D.C. 2014).
· cites it 4× “) Reilly’s second failure to be selected for promotion required his mandatory separation from the MCR pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 14505 . 7 Accordingly, Reilly’s separation from the MCR was set for November 1, 2005.”
United States v. Nettles, 74 M.J. 289 (C.A.A.F. 2015).
· cites it 3× “Instead, we think it more appropriate to apply the statute that actually discharged Appellant: 10 U.S.C. § 14505 (2012) ("Effect of failure of selection for promotion: reserve captains of the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps and reserve lieutenants of the Navy").”
Charette v. Walker, 996 F. Supp. 43 (D.D.C. 1998).
· cites it 2× “5, 1994), and replaced by 10 U.S.C. § 14505 . According to that provision, after October 1, 1996, a reserve Aimy captain "who has failed of selection for promotion to the next higher grade for the second time .”
Moody v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 522 (Fed. Cl. 2003).
“On January 7, 1999, he was notified that because he had twice failed to be selected for the next higher paygrade, the Corps was required, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §§ 14505 and 14513 (1994), to separate him from the Reserve component.”
United States v. Christensen (C.A.A.F. 2018).
· cites it 2× “The present case goes further and applies the “reason or policy” exception in Nettles to an 1 This statute specified the exact date of discharge for a “cap- tain on the reserve active-status list” who was not selected for promotion.”
Renzenberger, Inc. v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't (N.M. Ct. App. 2017).
“Commission advance the use of the 6 presumption, Taxpayer asserts that the United States Supreme Court “is currently split 7 as to the existence of a presumption against preemption[,]” and, regardless, if there 8 is such a presumption in this case, it only means that “Taxpayer…”
Kennedy v. Paul (D. Colo. 2022).
“1; 10 U.S.C. §§ 14505 , 14513. 5 The Court again notes that Plaintiff seeks only forward-looking relief.”
Kendall (D. Maryland 2026).
“See 10 U.S.C. §§ 14505 , 14513, 14516. “Air Force members are considered for promotion by a ‘promotion selection board’ a fixed period of time after their last promotion.”
United States v. Nettles (A.F.C.C.A. 2014).
“The ARPC notice cited 10 U.S.C. §14505 (hereinafter “non-promotion discharge”) as the discharge authority and advised the appellant that he would receive his discharge certificate “when the action is taken.”
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.