U.S. Code » Title 10 » Subtitle Subtitle A— General Military Law › Part PART II— PERSONNEL › Chapter CHAPTER 37— GENERAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS

10 U.S.C. § 654

Minimum service requirement for certain cyberspace occupational specialties

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Cyberspace Operations Officer.—The minimum service obligation for any member who successfully completes training in the armed forces in direct accession to the cyberspace operations officer occupational specialty of the Marine Corps shall be eight years.(b)Service Obligation Defined.—In this section, the term “service obligation” means the period of active duty or, in the case of a member of a reserve component who completed cyberspace operations training in an active duty for training status as a member of a reserve component, the period of service in an active status in the Selected Reserve, required to be served after completion of cyberspace operations training.(Added Pub. L. 118–31, div. A, title V, § 509(b), Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 243.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 654, added Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 571(a)(1), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1670, related to policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 111–321, § 2(f)(1)(A), Dec. 22, 2010, 124 Stat. 3516.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesDon’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal

Pub. L. 111–321, Dec. 22, 2010, 124 Stat. 3515, repealed former section 654 of this title effective 60 days after the later of the Secretary of Defense receiving a report, which was released Nov. 30, 2010, and the President transmitting to the congressional defense committees a written certification, which was transmitted July 22, 2011.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1994–2023 · leading case: Cook v. Gates, 528 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cook v. Gates, 528 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008). · cites it 32× “10 U.S.C. § 654 (2007)(the Act). The Act, known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," provides for the separation of members of the military who engage, attempt to engage, intend to engage, or have a propensity to engage in a homosexual act.”
Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F.3d 915 (4th Cir. 1996). · cites it 25× “Thomas-son challenges the constitutional validity of Section 571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, 10 U.S.C. § 654 , and the Department of Defense Directive that governs homosexuality in the military, pursuant to which Thomasson received an…”
United States v. Marcum, 60 M.J. 198 (C.A.A.F. 2004). · cites it 9× “Moreover, with respect to the military, the Government contends that Congress definitively addressed homosexual sodomy by enacting 10 U.S.C. § 654 (2000). According to the 20 United States v.”
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). · cites it 4× “(1975); that in some cases such "discrimination" is mandated by federal statute, see 10 U. S. C. § 654 (b)(1) (mandating discharge from the Armed Forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such "discrimination" is…”
Kerrigan v. Comm'r of Pub. Health, 957 A.2d 407 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 8× “1547 , 1670 (1993) (codified as amended at 10 U.S.C. § 654 ), pursuant to which a service member who has engaged in, intends to engage in or is likely to engage in homosexual conduct will be ordered separated from the armed services.”
Witt v. Dep't of the Air Force, 527 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 8× “Major Witt alleges that 10 U.S.C. § 654 , commonly known as the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy ("DADT"), violates substantive due process, the Equal Protection Clause, and procedural due process.”
Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 590 U.S. 644 (2020). · cites it 2× “3515 (repealing 10 U. S. C. §654 , which required members of the Armed Forces to be separated for engaging in homosexual conduct).”
Witt v. Dep't of Air Force, 548 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 28× “Major Margaret Witt, an Air Force reservist nurse, was suspended from the Air Force when a military board found, after a two-day hearing, that she "had engaged in homosexual acts and had stated that she was a homosexual in violation of [ 10 U.”
Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, 658 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 10× “10 U.S.C. § 654 (b) (repealed); see, e.g.”
United States v. Collier, 67 M.J. 347 (C.A.A.F. 2009). · cites it 5× “08-0495; 10 U.S.C. § 654 (a)(14) (2000). The defense opposed the motion, arguing that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and that the limitation requested by the Government violated those rights.”
Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, 716 F. Supp. 2d 884 (C.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 25× “Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans attacks the constitutionality of the statute known as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Act (“the Act” or “the Policy”), found at 10 U.S.C. § 654 , and its implementing regulations.”
United States v. Johnson, 61 M.J. 195 (C.A.A.F. 2005). · cites it 6× “10 U.S.C. § 654 (b) (2000). This policy is based upon congressional findings that “[t]he presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and…”
Show all 76 citing cases →
10 U.S.C. § 654(a)(12): 1 case
Cook v. Gates, 528 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008). “10 U.S.C. § 654 (2007)(the Act). The Act, known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," provides for the separation of members of the military who engage, attempt to engage, intend to engage, or have a propensity to engage in a homosexual act.”
10 U.S.C. § 654(b)(1): 1 case
Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F.3d 915 (4th Cir. 1996). “Thomas-son challenges the constitutional validity of Section 571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, 10 U.S.C. § 654 , and the Department of Defense Directive that governs homosexuality in the military, pursuant to which Thomasson received an…”
10 U.S.C. § 654(b)(2): 2 cases
Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, 716 F. Supp. 2d 884 (C.D. Cal. 2010). “Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans attacks the constitutionality of the statute known as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Act (“the Act” or “the Policy”), found at 10 U.S.C. § 654 , and its implementing regulations.”
Watson v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 728 (Fed. Cl. 2001).
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.