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. § 1556

Ex parte communications prohibited

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)In General.—The Secretary of each military department shall ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency, the Department of the Air Force Review Boards Agency, or the Board for Correction of Naval Records, as the case may be, is provided a copy of all correspondence and communications (including summaries of verbal communications) to or from the agency or board, or a member of the staff of the agency or board, with an entity or person outside the agency or board that pertain directly to the applicant’s case or have a material effect on the applicant’s case.(b)Exceptions.—Subsection (a) does not apply to the following:(1) Classified information.(2) Information the release of which is otherwise prohibited by law or regulation.(3) Any record previously provided to the applicant or known to be possessed by the applicant.(4) Any correspondence that is purely administrative in nature.(5) Any military record that is (or may be) provided to the applicant by the Secretary of the military department or other source.(Added Pub. L. 105–261, div. A, title V, § 543(a)(1), Oct. 17, 1998, 112 Stat. 2020; amended Pub. L. 118–31, div. A, title XVII, § 1722(j)(2)(B), Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 673.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2023—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 118–31 inserted “the Department of” after “the Army Review Boards Agency,”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 105–261, div. A, title V, § 543(b), Oct. 17, 1998, 112 Stat. 2021, provided that: “Section 1556 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to correspondence and communications made 60 days or more after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 17, 1998].”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1952–2026 · leading case: Paylor v. Winter, 600 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D.D.C. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Paylor v. Winter, 600 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D.D.C. 2009). · cites it 8× “10 U.S.C. § 1556 (a). There are exceptions to this prohibition, however, including “[a]ny correspondence that is purely administrative in nature.”
Prochazka v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 481 (Fed. Cl. 2009). · cites it 5× “On April 20, 2004, Plaintiff sent an e-mail to the BCNR to inquire about the status of his December 18, 2003 Application and notify the BCNR that, if the NPC issued an Advisory Opinion in his case, Plaintiff intended to file a comment, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1556 (2006)…”
Prochazka v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 444 (Fed. Cl. 2014). · cites it 3× “The court also determined that the BCNR violated 10 U.S.C. § 1556 , and its own internal procedures, by failing to allow Captain Prochazka the opportunity to comment on a May 2004 NPC Advisory Opinion before issuing a May 11, 2004 decision.”
Caez v. United States, 815 F. Supp. 2d 184 (D.D.C. 2011). · cites it 2× “10 U.S.C. § 1556 (a) (“The Secretary ... shall ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency .”
Petri v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 537 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “§ 552 (2006) (Freedom of Information Act), 10 U.S.C. § 1556 (2006) and Neal v. Sec'y, 639 F.”
Wollman v. Geren, 603 F. Supp. 2d 879 (E.D. Va. 2009). · cites it 2× “Finally, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1556 , Plaintiff requests a copy of any correspondence and communications having to do with the contested decision that the Discharge Review Board could not hear his case.”
Prochazka v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 774 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “As the court explained, the Board for the Correction of Naval Records (“BCNR”) violated 10 U.S.C. § 1556 (2006), and its own internal procedures, by failing to allow Plaintiff to comment on a May 5, 2004 NPC Advisory Opinion, prior to relying on that Opinion and issuing its May…”
United States v. Kubel, 1 C.M.A. 645 (1952). “They consisted of (1) larceny of property of the United States Government in violation of Article of War 94, 10 USC § 1566 ; (2) unlawful sale of same property in violation of Article of War 84, 10 USC § 1556 ; and (3) and (4) two absences without proper leave in violation of…”
Paylor v. Winter (D.D.C. 2009). · cites it 7× “10 U.S.C. § 1556 (a). There are exceptions to this prohibition, however, including “[a]ny correspondence that is purely administrative in nature.”
Carlborg v. Dep't of the Navy (D.D.C. 2020). · cites it 3× “As a final argument, Carlborg invokes a separate statute, 10 U.S.C. § 1556 (a), to support his claim that he was entitled to an unredacted copy of the advisory opinion that the Navy produced in response to the Privacy Act request in Count III.”
Teacher (D. Maryland 2026). · cites it 2× “10 U.S.C. § 1556 (a); 32 C.F.R. § 865.4 (b).”
Hubert Reape v. Sean Stackley (4th Cir. 2018). “6 (a)(2) (2017); see 10 U.S.C. § 1556 (b)(5) (2012). Finally, Reape claims that the BCNR’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 1556(b)(3) — 1 case
Teacher (D. Maryland 2026). “10 U.S.C. § 1556 (a); 32 C.F.R. § 865.4 (b).”
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.