U.S. Code
»
Title 10
» Subtitle Subtitle A— General Military Law › Part PART II— PERSONNEL › Chapter CHAPTER 47— UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— GENERAL PROVISIONS
10 U.S.C. § 803
Art. 3. Jurisdiction to try certain personnel
(a) Subject to section 843 of this title (article 43), a person who is in a status in which the person is subject to this chapter and who committed an offense against this chapter while formerly in a status in which the person was subject to this chapter is not relieved from amenability to the jurisdiction of this chapter for that offense by reason of a termination of that person’s former status.(b) Each person discharged from the armed forces who is later charged with having fraudulently obtained his discharge is, subject to section 843 of this title (article 43), subject to trial by court-martial on that charge and is after apprehension subject to this chapter while in the custody of the armed forces for that trial. Upon conviction of that charge he is subject to trial by court-martial for all offenses under this chapter committed before the fraudulent discharge.(c) No person who has deserted from the armed forces may be relieved from amenability to the jurisdiction of this chapter by virtue of a separation from any later period of service.(d) A member of a reserve component or the Space Force who is subject to this chapter is not, by virtue of the termination of a period of active duty or inactive-duty training, relieved from amenability to the jurisdiction of this chapter for an offense against this chapter committed during such period of active duty or inactive-duty training.(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 38; Pub. L. 99–661, div. A, title VIII, § 804(b), Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3907; Pub. L. 102–484, div. A, title X, § 1063, Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2505; Pub. L. 118–31, div. A, title XVII, § 1722(f)(2), Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 671.)In subsection (a), the words “the provisions of” are omitted as surplusage. The words “no * * * may” are substituted for the words “any * * * shall not”. The word “for” is substituted for the word “of” before the words “five years”. The words “of a State, a Territory, or” are substituted for the words “any State or Territory thereof or of”. The word “court-martial” is substituted for the word “courts-martial”.
In subsection (b), the words “Each person” are substituted for the words “All persons”. The words “who is later” are substituted for the word “subsequently”. The words “his discharge is” are substituted for the words “said discharge shall * * * be”. The words “the provisions of” are omitted as surplusage. The word “is” is substituted for the words “shall * * * be”. The words “he is” are substituted for the words “they shall be”. The word “before” is substituted for the words “prior to”.
In subsection (c), the words “No * * * may” are substituted for the words “Any * * * shall not”. The word “later” is substituted for the word “subsequent”.
Editorial NotesCodificationAnother section 1722(f) of Pub. L. 118–31 amended section 973 of this title.
Amendments2023—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 118–31 inserted “or the Space Force” after “reserve component”.
1992—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–484 amended subsec. (a) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (a) read as follows: “Subject to section 843 of this title (article 43), no person charged with having committed, while in a status in which he was subject to this chapter, an offense against this chapter, punishable by confinement for five years or more and for which the person cannot be tried in the courts of the United States or of a State, a Territory, or the District of Columbia, may be relieved from amenability to trial by court-martial by reason of the termination of that status.”
1986—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 99–661 added subsec. (d).
Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1992 AmendmentPub. L. 102–484, div. A, title X, § 1067, Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2506, provided that: “The amendments made by sections 1063, 1064, 1065, and 1066 [amending this section and sections 857, 863, 911, 918, and 920 of this title] shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 23, 1992] and shall apply with respect to offenses committed on or after that date.”
Effective Date of 1986 AmendmentAmendment by Pub. L. 99–661 applicable to offenses committed on or after the earlier of (1) the last day of the 120-day period beginning on Nov. 14, 1986; or (2) the date specified in an Executive order, see sections 804(e) and 808 of Pub. L. 99–661, set out as notes under section 802 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
65
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case:
Wickham v. Hall
Wickham v. Hall (1981)
cma · cites it 6×
“The Government asserts petitioner’s representations of pregnancy were fraudulent; that the separation order directing her release has been revoked; and that she is amenable to trial by court-martial under the provisions of Article 3(b), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 803 (b). A government…”
Ignacio Lanuza v. Jonathan Love (2018)
ca9
“Abbasi also counseled against allowing a Bivens remedy if there is an “alternative, existing process for protecting the 6 If Congress intended all actions taken by an officer while acting pursuant to the INA to be regulated by the INA itself in a separate court, it would have…”
United States v. Clardy (1982)
cma · cites it 3×
“On October 31, 1980, the United States Army Court of Military Review set aside *309 the findings of guilty on the two specifications of making and delivering a worthless check, because it concluded these offenses had been committed shortly before appellee had been discharged…”
United States v. Hart (2008)
armfor · cites it 2×
“See Article 3, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 803 (2000). Post-discharge court-martial charges In the months preceding his discharge, Hart had served as a confidential informant for the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI), gathering information about illegal drug use by other…”
United States v. Reid (1997)
armfor · cites it 3×
“During appeal from these convictions and after full consideration of an issue that it had specified, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that, under Article 3(b), UCMJ, 10 USC § 803 (b), appellee’s court-martial lacked jurisdiction to try any of the charged offenses other than…”
United States v. Anthony Kebodeaux (2012)
ca5 · cites it 2×
“33 Similarly, the law concerning Congress’s military powers suggests that Congress does not have continuing military jurisdiction over Kebodeaux after he was discharged from the military.”
United States v. Wheeler (1959)
cma · cites it 4×
“whether, after release from active duty in the Air Force to a reserve status, a member of the United States Air Force Reserve, who has an uncompleted military service obligation, is subject to Article 3(a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 803 (a), for the…”
Wendy L. Wickham v. Alvin O. Hall, Colonel, U.S. Army, and United States (1983)
ca5 · cites it 3×
“Impermissible Presumption The majority has concluded that Article 3(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 803 (b) (1976), constitutionally confers court-martial jurisdiction over a former servicewoman who has received a facially valid discharge later challenged…”
United States v. Cole (1987)
cma · cites it 2×
“Trial defense counsel moved that the court sever the June 8, 1982, charges on the basis of Article 3(b), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 803 (b). The prosecution did not oppose this motion, and the military judge granted it.”
United States v. Gorski (1997)
armfor
“II Even though we decide that Article 58b had an unconstitutional ex post facto effect as to Gorski, this does not require holding that Article 58b is invalid as to all accused persons — regardless of the dates of their offenses.”
United States v. Fischer (2005)
armfor
“Article 3(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 803 (a) (2000), makes it clear that personal jurisdiction is “status based” under the UCMJ: “.”
Duncan v. Usher (1986)
cma · cites it 3×
“” 8 Thus, Article 3(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 803 (a), as it was redrafted, authorized military jurisdiction over serious crimes committed by Reserves while on active duty and for which they could not be tried by a Federal or State court.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 803(b) — 1 case
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.