U.S. Code » Title 10 » Subtitle Subtitle E— Reserve Components › Part PART III— PROMOTION AND RETENTION OF OFFICERS ON THE RESERVE ACTIVE-STATUS LIST › Chapter CHAPTER 1407— FAILURE OF SELECTION FOR PROMOTION AND INVOLUNTARY SEPARATION

10 U.S.C. § 14507

Removal from the reserve active-status list for years of service: reserve lieutenant colonels and colonels of the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps and reserve commanders and captains of the Navy

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Lieutenant Colonels and Commanders.—Unless continued on the reserve active-status list under section 14701, 14701a, or 14702 of this title or retained as provided in section 12646 or 12686 of this title, each reserve officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps who holds the grade of lieutenant colonel or commander and who is not on a list of officers recommended for promotion to the next higher grade shall (if not earlier removed from the reserve active-status list) be removed from that list under section 14514 of this title on the first day of the month after the month in which the officer completes 28 years of commissioned service.(b)Colonels and Navy Captains.—Unless continued on the reserve active-status list under section 14701, 14701a, or 14702 of this title or retained as provided in section 12646 or 12686 of this title, each reserve officer of the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps who holds the grade of colonel, and each reserve officer of the Navy who holds the grade of captain, and who is not on a list of officers recommended for promotion to the next higher grade shall (if not earlier removed from the reserve active-status list) be removed from that list under section 14514 of this title on the first day of the month after the month in which the officer completes 30 years of commissioned service. This subsection does not apply to the adjutant general or assistant adjutants general of a State.(c)Temporary Authority To Retain Certain Officers Designated as Judge Advocates.—(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary of the Air Force may retain on the reserve active-status list any reserve officer of the Air Force who is designated as a judge advocate and who obtained the first professional degree in law while on an educational delay program subsequent to being commissioned through the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps.(2) No more than 50 officers may be retained on the reserve active-status list under the authority of paragraph (1) at any time.(3) No officer may be retained on the reserve active-status list under the authority of paragraph (1) for a period exceeding three years from the date on which, but for that authority, that officer would have been removed from the reserve active-status list under subsection (a) or (b).(4) The authority of the Secretary of the Air Force under paragraph (1) expires on September 30, 2003.(Added Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, § 1611, Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2951; amended Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title V, § 508(a), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2513; Pub. L. 118–159, div. A, title V, § 513(c)(4), Dec. 23, 2024, 138 Stat. 1876.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2024—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 118–159 inserted “, 14701a,” after “14701”.

1996—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–201 added subsec. (c).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1996 Amendment

Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title V, § 508(b), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2513, provided that: “Subsection (c) of section 14507 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on October 1, 1996.”

Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1996, see section 1691(b)(1) of Pub. L. 103–337, set out as a note under section 10001 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: William v. Wenger v. Paul D. Monroe, Jr., in His Off. Capacity as Adjutant Gen. of the California Nat'l Guard California Nat'l Guard, 282 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
William v. Wenger v. Paul D. Monroe, Jr., in His Off. Capacity as Adjutant Gen. of the California Nat'l Guard California Nat'l Guard, 282 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2002). “2951, which enacted the current mandatory retirement provisions for army colonels (codified as amended at 10 U.S.C. § 14507 ), provided that a reserve officer of the Army .”
Bublitz v. Brownlee, 309 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004). “See 10 U.S.C. § 14507 (a), (b). Plaintiff was promoted to colonel on March 4, 1999, and according to the terms of the Act, he would be removed from active service in September 2001.”
Appleby v. Harvey, 517 F. Supp. 2d 253 (D.D.C. 2007). “at 162); see 10 U.S.C. § 14507 (2000) (requiring that Reserve Colonels with 30 years of service be retired unless they are on a list of officers recommended for promotion to the next higher grade).”
Wetherill v. Geren, 616 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2010). “Under 10 U.S.C. § 14507 (b), National Guard Colonels who have not been recommended for promotion to a higher rank are required to retire from the military after 30 years of service.”
Appleby v. Geren, 330 F. App'x 196 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “Appleby’s final argument is that he was not lawfully retired pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 14507 (b) because his name was never removed from the promotion list under 10 U.”
Kosmo v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 46 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “10 U.S.C. § 14507 (b) (2000); 10 U.S.C. § 14514 (2000).”
Aikens v. Ingram, 71 F. Supp. 3d 562 (E.D.N.C. 2014). “10 U.S.C. § 14507 . Though he was quite close to his' mandatory retirement date, he had not reached it when he retired, therefore his pay is lower than it would have *570 been had he not retired prior to his mandatory retirement date.”
Wetherill v. Geren, 644 F. Supp. 2d 1135 (D.S.D. 2009). · cites it 3× “Under 10 U.S.C. § 14507 (b), a colonel is removed from active status the first day of the month after the month in which the officer completes 30 years of commissioned service.”
Hirsch v. United States, No. 19-236 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 31, 2021). · cites it 7× “He alleges that he was wrongfully discharged because the Army miscalculated his mandatory removal date under 10 U.S.C. § 14507 (a). Specifically, he argues that his service during law school should have been excluded from the Army’s computation of the length of his commissioned…”
Hirsch v. United States, No. 19-236 (Fed. Cl. July 25, 2019). · cites it 2× “Specifically, the plaintiff argues that his time in law school should not be included in computing his time of service under 10 U.S.C. § 14507 (a)1 by virtue of the effect of 10 U.”
Hirsch v. United States, No. 21-2163 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2022). · cites it 2× “According to the Army, he had served for 28 years, the maximum al- lowed for lieutenant colonels under 10 U.S.C. § 14507 (a) (absent certain exceptions not applicable here).”
Hirsch v. United States, No. 21-2163 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2022). · cites it 2× “According to the Army, he had served for 28 years, the maximum al- lowed for lieutenant colonels under 10 U.S.C. § 14507 (a) (absent certain exceptions not applicable here).”
Show all 15 citing cases →
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.