10 U.S.C. § 687
Renumbered § 12319]
[renumbered]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42
cases, 1965–1995 · leading case: Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426 (Vet. App. 1994).
Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426 (Vet. App. 1994). “In particular, the BVA noted that Fractional recovery by VA from monthly disability compensation payments of an amount equal to 75 percent of the lump-sum readjustment pay received under former 10 U.S.C. § 687 was [previously] authorized, “in order to take into account the tax…”
Dilley v. Alexander, 627 F.2d 407 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “Those appellants who did not remain in the service as enlisted men or warrant officers received readjustment pay pursuant to the workings of 10 U.S.C. § 687 (a). Once the records of these appellants are corrected to reflect that they should not have been separated, the…”
Chotiner v. Chotiner, 829 P.2d 829 (Alaska 1992). “Military separation payments are governed by 10 U.S.C. § 687 . The formula for their calculation is years of service multiplied by monthly basic pay multiplied by two (with various limits which are not applicable here).”
Ulmet v. United States, 17 Cl. Ct. 679 (Ct. Cl. 1989). “00 severance or readjustment payment, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 687 (repealed 1981), for transition to a civilian career.”
Perez v. Perez, 587 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. 1979). “10 U.S.C. § 687 (a). This payment is computed by multiplying his years of active service by two months’ basic pay of his grade at the time of release.”
Cna Fin. Corp. v. Raymond J. Donovan, Sec'y of Labor, 830 F.2d 1132 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “Involved there was 10 U.S.C. § 687 (a) (1976), which included a “rounding" provision to be applied in the computation of military readjustment pay.”
Cass v. United States, 417 U.S. 72 (1974). “Congress has provided in 10 U. S. C. § 687 (a) 1 that an otherwise eligible member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, who is involuntarily released from active duty, “and who has completed, immediately before his release, at least five years of continuous active duty,…”
Palm v. United States, 904 F. Supp. 1312 (M.D. Ala. 1995). “§ 1174 (h), separation pay recoupment was governed by 10 U.S.C. § 687 (enacted as Pub.L. 89-718, 80 Stat.”
Ex Parte Burson, 615 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. 1981). “(6) Military Readjustment, 10 U.S.C. § 687 , [preempted by supremacy clause]: Perez v.”
De Cicco v. United States, 230 Ct. Cl. 224 (Ct. Cl. 1982). “However, in any event he is not entitled to readjustment pay because he does not meet the requirements of the statute ( 10 U.S.C. §687 ). In light of our resolution of this case, we need not consider the other issues raised by the parties.”
Mansell v. United States, 199 Ct. Cl. 796 (Ct. Cl. 1972). “OPINION OF COMMISSIONER White, Commissioner: The plaintiff, a member of the United States Naval Reserve who was released from active duty by the Na~vy on December 2, 1969, sues in the present case for a readjustment payment under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 687 (a). It is my…”
John A. Henneberger v. The United States, 403 F.2d 237 (Ct. Cl. 1968). “It is noted at the outset that while 10 U.S.C. § 687 (a) speaks in terms of an additional “tour of duty,” the regulation specifies “regular tour of duty.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 687(a) — 3 cases
Captain Robert S. Colson, Jr. v. Major Gen. Bradley & Melvin Laird, 477 F.2d 639 (8th Cir. 1973).
O'Meara v. United States, 59 F.R.D. 560 (N.D. Ill. 1973).
Cass v. United States, 344 F. Supp. 550 (D. Mont. 1972).
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.