U.S. Code
»
Title 10
» Subtitle Subtitle A— General Military Law › Part PART II— PERSONNEL › Chapter CHAPTER 77— POSTHUMOUS COMMISSIONS AND WARRANTS
10 U.S.C. § 1522
Posthumous warrants
(a) The Secretary concerned may issue, or have issued, an appropriate warrant in the name of a member of the armed forces who, after September 8, 1939, was officially recommended for appointment or promotion to a grade other than a commissioned grade but was unable to accept the appointment or promotion because of death.(b) A warrant issued under subsection (a) shall issue as of the date of the recommendation, and the member’s name shall be carried on the records of the military or executive department concerned as if he had served in the grade to which posthumously appointed or promoted from the date of the recommendation to the date of his death.(c) A warrant issued under subsection (a) in connection with the promotion of a deceased member to a higher grade shall require a finding by the Secretary concerned that, at the time of death of the member, the member was qualified for appointment to that higher grade.(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 116; Pub. L. 110–417, [div. A], title V, § 502(b), Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4433.)In subsection (a), the words “a member of” are substituted for the words “any person who, while in”, in 10:612 and 34:285e. The words “armed forces” are substituted for the words “the military service of the United States”, in 10:612; and “the naval service of the United States”, in 34:285e (which did not appear in the source statute for the revised section, as amended by the act of July 17, 1953, ch. 220, § 1(b), 67 Stat. 177). The words “other than a commissioned grade” are substituted for the words “noncommissioned grade” to make it clear that the revised section covers warrant officers. The words “receive or” are omitted as surplusage.
In subsection (b), the words “appointment or promotion”, “and branch of the service”, “official”, and “by such warrant” are omitted as surplusage.
Editorial NotesAmendments2008—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 110–417, § 502(b)(1), struck out “in line of duty” before period at end.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 110–417, § 502(b)(2), added subsec. (c).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
22
cases, 1940–2012 · leading case:
Schwalier v. Panetta, 839 F. Supp. 2d 75 (D.D.C. 2012).
Schwalier v. Panetta, 839 F. Supp. 2d 75 (D.D.C. 2012).
· cites it 3× “” 10 U.S.C. § 1522 (a)(1). 3 The Board held that, “after reviewing [Brigadier General Schwalier’s] complete original submission to the Board, his current submission, and additional classified material referenced by the applicant .”
Hunter v. Wade, 169 F.2d 973 (10th Cir. 1948).
· cites it 2× “Two witnesses, the mother and father of the victim of the alleged rape, were unable to be present due to sickness, and the Court continued the case so that their testimony could be obtained.”
Sanford v. Robbins, 115 F.2d 435 (5th Cir. 1940).
· cites it 2× “797, Article of War 50%, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1522 , expressly provided in a proper case for a rehearing before a new court-martial composed of officers not members of the court which first sat, guarding the accused against conviction for anything he was previously acquitted of, and…”
United States Ex Rel. Innes v. Hiatt, 141 F.2d 664 (3rd Cir. 1944).
“§ 1518 , and remand the case for rehearing under Article 50%, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1522 , it could not in our opinion have so seriously affected the fundamental fairness of the trial as to deprive the court under the fifth amendment of its jurisdiction to adjudge and sentence the…”
Flackman v. Hunter, 75 F. Supp. 871 (D. Kan. 1948).
· cites it 2× “80, Headquarters, 84th Infantry Division, which, pursuant to Article of War 50(4, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1522 , disapproves a finding of guilty of rape and approves only the findings of ‘guilty of fraternization and of stealing and carrying away from a person, one gold ring, value of…”
United States v. Petroff-Tachomakoff, 5 C.M.A. 824 (1955).
“Article of War 504, 41 Stat 787, 797 (1920); 10 USC § 1522 (1927). In 1948, Article of War 50, 50 Stat 627, 10 USC § 1521 (1948), replaced Article of War 504, and was in existence at the time the Uniform Code was enacted.”
Waite v. Overlade, 164 F.2d 722 (7th Cir. 1947).
“enty years; that thereafter, the Board of Review established for the Branch Office of the Judge Advocate General for the European Theater duly reviewed the proceedings and concluded that the record of the trial was legally sufficient to support the finding of guilty and the…”
United States v. Bayer, 156 F.2d 964 (2d Cir. 1946).
“The United States Attorney stated to the trial court that the conviction had been reversed upon the review provided by Article 50 1/2, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1522 ; and by the terms of Article 40, 10 U.”
Millard v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 55 (Ct. Cl. 1987).
“The Court of Claims found expressly that Darby’s action was premised on 10 U.S.C. § 1522 , which permitted the Department of Army to pay Darby’s claim pursuant to the correction of his records by the Secretary of the Army.”
Wade v. Hunter, 72 F. Supp. 755 (D. Kan. 1947).
“The opinion of the Board of Review and the dissent of the Assistant Judge Advocate General were submitted to the Commanding General, United States Forces, European Theater, under the third paragraph of Article of War 50%, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1522 , and upon consideration thereof and…”
Brewster v. Swope, Warden, 180 F.2d 984 (9th Cir. 1950).
“10 U.S.C.A. § 1522 . 4 . It does not appear that Brewster entered a plea of double jeopardy before the military court.”
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.