10 U.S.C. § 6323
Assessments of emergency preparedness of defense nuclear facilities
The Secretary of Energy shall include, in each award-fee evaluation conducted under section 16.401 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, of a management and operating contract for a Department of Energy defense nuclear facility in 2016 or any even-numbered year thereafter, an assessment of the adequacy of the emergency preparedness of that facility, including an assessment of the seniority level of management and operating contractor employees that participate in emergency preparedness exercises at that facility.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1964–2021 · leading case: Bias v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 350 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
Bias v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 350 (Fed. Cl. 2017). “Bias challenges the Marine Corps’ actions that resulted in his 2006 and 2010 retirements, alleging (1) a violation of 10 U.S.C. § 6323 , which governs the active duty service requirements for the retirement of Marine Corps officers, and (2) violations of the Military Pay Act, 37…”
LeClert v. LeClert, 453 P.2d 755 (N.M. 1969). “Plaintiff served as an officer in the United States Navy since 1943, and pursuant to 10 U.S.C.A. § 6323 (e) was ordered to be retired on July 1, 1968.”
Loeh v. United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 2 (Fed. Cl. 2002). “4 Consequently, the failure of the Navy to observe non-money-mandating regulations is not actionable in the Court of Federal Claims.”
Evelyn L. Lewis v. United States, 458 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “, 10 U.S.C. §§ 6323 , 6333, 1370; see also Sawyer v.”
Cunningham v. Cunningham, 615 S.E.2d 675 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005). “10 U.S.C. § 6323 (2005) (providing retirement benefit eligibility to Marine officers who have served twenty years); Seifert, 82 N.”
Bias v. United States, 124 Fed. Cl. 663 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “In addition to claiming entitlement to back pay and allowances under the Military Pay Act, plaintiff claims damages resulting from the government’s alleged violation of 10 U.S.C. § 6323 (which governs the active duty service requirements for retirement of Navy or Marine Corps…”
Fuller v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 640 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “10 U.S.C. § 6323 (a)(1) (2013) (emphasis added).”
In Re Marriage of Fithian, 517 P.2d 449 (Cal. 1974). “( 10 U.S.C. § 6323 (e).) Moreover, should the serviceman actually be recalled to active duty, he is not only additionally compensated according to the active duty pay scale, but his rate of retirement pay is also increased thereafter.”
United States v. Davis, 52 M.J. 201 (C.A.A.F. 1999). “3 / TERA supplemented 10 USC § 6323 , which provided that "[a]n officer of the Navy .”
Matter of Marriage of Reinauer, 946 S.W.2d 853 (Tex. App. 1997). “According to 10 U.S.C. § 6323 , a naval officer was entitled to voluntarily retire, with the consent of the United States President, after 20 years of service.”
In Re Marriage of Freiberg, 57 Cal. App. 3d 304 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976). “” ( 10 U.S.C. § 6323 (e).) At the time of separation the husband’s basic pay was $918.”
Chisnell v. Chisnell, 267 N.W.2d 155 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “( 10 U. S. C. § 6323 (e).) Moreover, should the serviceman actually be recalled to active duty, he is not only additionally compensated according to the active duty pay scale, but his rate of retirement pay is also increased thereafter.”
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.