U.S. Code
»
Title 10
» Subtitle Subtitle A— General Military Law › Part PART II— PERSONNEL › Chapter CHAPTER 73— ANNUITIES BASED ON RETIRED OR RETAINER PAY › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN
10 U.S.C. § 1453
Recovery of amounts erroneously paid
(a)Recovery.—In addition to any other method of recovery provided by law, the Secretary concerned may authorize the recovery of any amount erroneously paid to a person under this subchapter by deduction from later payments to that person.(b)Authority To Waive Recovery.—Recovery of an amount erroneously paid to a person under this subchapter is not required if, in the judgment of the Secretary concerned—(1) there has been no fault by the person to whom the amount was erroneously paid; and(2) recovery of such amount would be contrary to the purposes of this subchapter or against equity and good conscience.(Added Pub. L. 92–425, § 1(3), Sept. 21, 1972, 86 Stat. 710; amended Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title VI, § 634, Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2577; Pub. L. 104–316, title I, § 105(a), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3830.)Editorial NotesAmendments1996—Pub. L. 104–201 substituted “amounts” for “annuity” in section catchline and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “In addition to other methods of recovery provided by law, the Secretary concerned may authorize the recovery, by deduction from later payments to a person, of any amount erroneously paid to him under this subchapter. However, recovery is not required if, in the judgment of the Secretary concerned and the Comptroller General, there has been no fault by the person to whom the amount was erroneously paid and recovery would be contrary to the purposes of this subchapter or against equity and good conscience.”
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–316 struck out “and the Comptroller General” after “judgment of the Secretary concerned” in introductory provisions.
Notes of Decisions
People v. Moore CA4/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
“Analysis We reject the argument that state trial courts lack jurisdiction over the charge of theft of military benefits because Congress designated the decision whether an offense has been committed to the Secretary of the Navy ( 10 U.S.C. § 1453 ), and there is no federal…”
People v. Moore CA4/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
“Analysis We reject the argument that state trial courts lack jurisdiction over the charge of theft of military benefits because Congress designated the decision whether an offense has been committed to the Secretary of the Navy ( 10 U.S.C. § 1453 ), and there is no federal…”
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.