10 U.S.C. § 673

Consideration of application for permanent change of station or unit transfer for members on active duty who are the victim of a sexual assault or related offense

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Timely Consideration and Action.—The Secretary concerned shall provide for timely determination and action on an application for consideration of a change of station or unit transfer submitted by a member of the armed forces serving on active duty who was a victim of a sexual assault or other offense covered by section 920, 920c, or 930 of this title (article 120, 120c, or 130 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) so as to reduce the possibility of retaliation against the member for reporting the sexual assault or other offense.(b)Regulations.—The Secretary concerned shall issue regulations to carry out this section, within guidelines provided by the Secretary of Defense. These guidelines shall provide that the application submitted by a member described in subsection (a) for a change of station or unit transfer must be approved or disapproved by the member’s commanding officer within five calendar days of the submission of the application. Additionally, if the application is disapproved by the commanding officer, the member shall be given the opportunity to request review by the first general officer or flag officer in the chain of command of the member, and that decision must be made within five calendar days of submission of the request for review.(Added Pub. L. 112–81, div. A, title V, § 582(a), Dec. 31, 2011, 125 Stat. 1432; amended Pub. L. 113–66, div. A, title X, § 1091(a)(8), title XVII, § 1712, Dec. 26, 2013, 127 Stat. 876, 963; Pub. L. 115–91, div. A, title X, § 1081(c)(2)(A), Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1599; Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title V, § 531(a), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 3601.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 673 was renumbered section 12302 of this title.

Amendments

2021—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 116–283 substituted “five calendar days” for “72 hours” in two places.

2017—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 115–91 substituted “920c, or 930” for “920a, or 920c” and “120c, or 130” for “120a, or 120c”.

2013—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 113–66, § 1091(a)(8), inserted “of the Uniform Code of Military Justice” after “120c”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 113–66, § 1712, substituted “The Secretary concerned” for “The Secretaries of the military departments”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2021 Amendment

Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title V, § 531(b), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 3601, provided that: “The amendments made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [Jan. 1, 2021], and shall apply to decisions on applications for permanent change of station or unit transfer made under section 673 of title 10, United States Code, on or after that date.”

Effective Date of 2017 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–91 effective immediately after the amendments made by div. E (§§ 5001–5542) of Pub. L. 114–328 take effect as provided for in section 5542 of that Act (10 U.S.C. 801 note) [amendments effective Jan. 1, 2019], see section 1081(c)(4) of Pub. L. 115–91, set out as a note under section 801 of this title.

Standardization of Policies Related to Expedited Transfer in Cases of Sexual Assault or Domestic Violence

Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title V, § 536, Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1761, provided that:“(a)Policies for Members.—The Secretary of Defense shall modify, in accordance with section 673 of title 10, United States Code, all policies that the Secretary determines necessary to establish a standardized expedited transfer process for a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps who is the alleged victim of—“(1) sexual assault (regardless of whether the case is handled under the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program or Family Advocacy Program); or“(2) physical domestic violence (as defined by the Secretary in regulations prescribed under this section) committed by the spouse or intimate partner of the member, regardless of whether the spouse or intimate partner is a member of the Armed Forces.“(b)Policy for Dependents of Members.—The Secretary of Defense shall establish a policy to allow the transfer of a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps whose dependent is the victim of sexual assault perpetrated by a member of the Armed Forces who is not related to the victim.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 34 cases, 1959–2005 · leading case: Morse v. Boswell, 289 F. Supp. 812 (D. Maryland 1968).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Morse v. Boswell, 289 F. Supp. 812 (D. Maryland 1968). · cites it 8× “10 U.S.C. § 673 provides that “[i]n time of national emergency declared by the President, after January 1, 1953, or when otherwise authorized by law, an authority designated by the Secretary concerned may, without the consent of the persons concerned, order” any Ready Reserve…”

Greene v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl. 375 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “Green has not clearly identified a money mandating statute supporting his claims for back pay — citing 10 U.S.C. § 673 , 10 U.S.C. § 938 , 10 U.”

Mellinger v. Laird, 339 F. Supp. 434 (E.D. Pa. 1972). · cites it 6× “The Army activated Mellinger pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 673 (a) and (b) which read as follows: “(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President may order to active duty any member of the Ready Reserve of an armed force who (1) is not assigned to, or participating…”

United States v. Swanholm, 36 M.J. 743 (1992). · cites it 3× “On 25 January 1991, pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 673 , the 5501st was mobilized and ordered to active duty with the Health Services Command for a period of twelve months.”

Perpich v. United States Dep't of Def., 880 F.2d 11 (8th Cir. 1989). “§ 672 , for “training”, rather than under the operations provisions, 10 U.S.C. §§ 673 , 673a, 673b, which require a declaration of emergency or consultation with Congress.”

Clayton Miller & Dennis Shea v. Captain Carl Ackerman, George Klinkhammer v. James R. Schlesinger, Sec'y of Def., 488 F.2d 920 (8th Cir. 1973). “Failure to obtain credit for satisfactory attendance at drills will result in an order to active duty, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 673 (a). The United States District Courts for the District of Nebraska, Honorable Robert Van Pelt, and the District of Minnesota, Honorable Phillip…”

Johnson v. Powell, 414 F.2d 1060 (5th Cir. 1969). · cites it 3× “” The government contends that “when otherwise authorized by law” would include later enacted Public Law 89-687, § 101 (e), and not just those laws in effect on the date that 10 U.S.C.A. § 673 (a) was enacted. The petitioners, however, contend that “when otherwise authorized by…”

Cullen v. United States, 372 F. Supp. 441 (N.D. Ill. 1974). · cites it 2× “More specifically the plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the class they seek to represent request this Court to enjoin the defendants from enforcing Air Force Regulation 35-10, which prohibits reservists, with certain exceptions, from wearing wigs while attending drills, and…”

United States v. Wheeler, 10 C.M.A. 646 (1959). “He is part of that body of men who is characterized as ready reserves, and he is subject to serve on active duty almost at the scratch of the Presidential pen, 10 USC § 673 . It must be realized that under existing conditions a reservoir of trained individuals who are minutemen…”

Drifka v. Brainard, 294 F. Supp. 425 (W.D. Wash. 1968). · cites it 2× “§§ 262 , 263, 672 and 673 are incorporated into contracts of enlistment; is not merely prospective as enacted per 10 U.S.C. § 673 ; and there is no substantial constitutional question as to the statute’s validity.”

Murphy v. Garrett, 729 F. Supp. 461 (W.D. Pa. 1990). “, 10 U.S.C. § 673 . Full-fledged civilians, on the other hand, have a legitimate expectation that the military will exercise no control over them.”

Stephen C. Ansted v. Stanley R. Resor, Sec'y of the Army, & Vernon P. Mock, Commandinggeneral, Fifth United States Army, Fort Sheridan, Illinois, 437 F.2d 1020 (5th Cir. 1971). “Neither the statute providing for the activation of reservists, 10 U.S.C. § 673 (a), nor the regulation setting up the activation procedures, AR 135-91, gives an involuntary activated reservist a right to a personal hearing in such an appeal.”

Show all 34 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.