U.S. Code » Title 10 » Subtitle Subtitle A— General Military Law › Part PART II— PERSONNEL › Chapter CHAPTER 79— CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

10 U.S.C. § 1554

Review of retirement or separation without pay for physical disability

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The Secretary concerned shall from time to time establish boards of review, each consisting of five commissioned officers, two of whom shall be selected from officers of the Army Medical Corps, officers of the Navy Medical Corps, Air Force officers designated as medical officers, or officers of the Public Health Service, as the case may be, to review, upon the request of a member or former member of the uniformed services retired or released from active duty without pay for physical disability, the findings and decisions of the retiring board, board of medical survey, or disposition board in the member’s case. A request for review must be made within 15 years after the date of the retirement or separation.(b) A board established under this section has the same powers as the board whose findings and decision are being reviewed. The findings of the board shall be sent to the Secretary concerned, who shall submit them to the President for approval.(c) A review by a board established under this section shall be based upon the records of the armed forces concerned and such other evidence as may be presented to the board. A witness may present evidence to the board in person or by affidavit. A person who requests a review under this section may appear before the board in person or by counsel or an accredited representative of an organization recognized by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under chapter 59 of title 38.(Added Pub. L. 85–857, § 13(v)(2), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1267; amended Pub. L. 87–651, title I, § 110(a), Sept. 7, 1962, 76 Stat. 510; Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title XVI, § 1621(a)(2), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1603; Pub. L. 111–383, div. A, title V, § 533(a), Jan. 7, 2011, 124 Stat. 4216.)Historical and Revision Notes

Sections 1553 and 1554 are restated, without substantive change, to conform to the style adopted for title 10.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2011—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 111–383 substituted “a member or former member of the uniformed services” for “an officer” and “the member’s case” for “his case”.

1989—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 101–189 substituted “Secretary of Veterans Affairs” for “Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs”.

1962—Pub. L. 87–651 amended section generally without substantive change to conform to the style adopted for the revision of this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1959, see section 2 of Pub. L. 85–857, set out as a note preceding Part I of Title 38, Veterans’ Benefits.

Executive DocumentsTransfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of Public Health Service, see note set out under section 802 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1942–2025 · leading case: Robert E. Pearl v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 301 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Robert E. Pearl v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 301 (Fed. Cl. 2013). · cites it 2× “10 U.S.C. § 1554 ; U.S. Dep’t of Def., Instr.”
Chatman v. United States Dep't of Def., 270 F. Supp. 3d 184 (D.D.C. 2017). · cites it 2× “See 10 U.S.C. § 1554 ; Compl. Ex. C (“Apr. 2015 PDBR Letter”) [Dkt.”
Bell v. United States, 32 Fed. Cl. 259 (Fed. Cl. 1994). · cites it 4× “Plaintiff asserts the decision is arbitrary and capricious because none of the Board’s members was a qualified medical officer as required by 10 U.S.C. § 1554 , the Board denied plaintiff’s request for a hearing, and the Board rejected evidence indicating plaintiff was…”
Petri v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 537 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “Petri’s application on February 18, 2009, informing him that, alternatively, he could submit his application to the Physical Disability Board of Review, a new forum established under 10 U.S.C. § 1554 (a) (2006) for the purpose of reassessing the combined disability ratings of…”
Wollman v. United States, 108 Fed. Cl. 656 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “Woll-man’s Discharge On February 20, 2007, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1554 , the APDRB convened to hear Mr.”
Grooms v. United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 651 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “10 U.S.C. § 1554 ; U.S. Dep’t of Def., Instr.”
United States v. Minoru Yasui, 48 F. Supp. 40 (D. Or. 1942). · cites it 2× “804 , 10 U.S.C.A. § 1554 . 12 Smith v. Shaw, 12 Johns.”
Wollman v. Geren, 603 F. Supp. 2d 879 (E.D. Va. 2009). “From there, Plaintiff filed a petition with the Army Disability Review Board (the “Disability Review Board”) pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1554 . He asked for a medical retirement from the Army, a finding that there had been a service-related aggravation of his condition, and a…”
William C. Colepaugh v. Chesley H. Looney, 235 F.2d 429 (10th Cir. 1956). “The second charge alleged the violation of the 82nd Article of War, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1554 , and specified that during November and December 1944, the petitioner and one Gimpel, acting for the German Reich, were, in time of war, found lurking and acting as spies in and about the…”
Stout v. Hancock, 146 F.2d 741 (4th Cir. 1944). “Only under article 82, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1554 , relating to spies, is the death sentence now made mandatory.”
Hoppock v. United States, 163 Ct. Cl. 87 (Ct. Cl. 1963). “623 , now 10 U.S.C. § 1554 . This amendment, however, did not establish or recognize the former as “statutory” units “competent” to decide disability issues.”
Trzop v. Vets. Admin., No. 3:23-cv-00589 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 11, 2025). · cites it 5× “10 U.S.C. § 1554 In the Complaint, Trzop asserts a claim under 10 U.”
Show all 17 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.