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 VIII— SENTENCES

10 U.S.C. § 858b

Art. 58b. Sentences: forfeiture of pay and allowances during confinement

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)(1) A court-martial sentence described in paragraph (2) shall result in the forfeiture of pay, or of pay and allowances, due that member during any period of confinement or parole. The forfeiture pursuant to this section shall take effect on the date determined under section 857 of this title (article 57) and may be deferred as provided in that section. The pay and allowances forfeited, in the case of a general court-martial, shall be all pay and allowances due that member during such period and, in the case of a special court-martial, shall be two-thirds of all pay due that member during such period.(2) A sentence covered by this section is any sentence that includes—(A) confinement for more than six months or death; or(B) confinement for six months or less and a dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge or dismissal.(b) In a case involving an accused who has dependents, the convening authority or other person acting under section 860a or 860b of this title (article 60a or 60b) may waive any or all of the forfeitures of pay and allowances required by subsection (a) for a period not to exceed six months. Any amount of pay or allowances that, except for a waiver under this subsection, would be forfeited shall be paid, as the convening authority or other person taking action directs, to the dependents of the accused.(c) If the sentence of a member who forfeits pay and allowances under subsection (a) is set aside or disapproved or, as finally approved, does not provide for a punishment referred to in subsection (a)(2), the member shall be paid the pay and allowances which the member would have been paid, except for the forfeiture, for the period during which the forfeiture was in effect.(Added Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title XI, § 1122(a)(1), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 463; amended Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title X, § 1068(a)(1), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2655; Pub. L. 105–85, div. A, title X, § 1073(a)(9), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1900; Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LVIII, § 5302(b)(3), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2923; Pub. L. 115–91, div. A, title V, § 531(g), Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1385.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2017—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 115–91 substituted “section 860a or 860b of this title (article 60a or 60b)” for “section 860 of this title (article 60)”.

2016—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 114–328 substituted “section 857 of this title (article 57)” for “section 857(a) of this title (article 57(a))”.

1997—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 105–85 substituted “forfeiture of pay, or of pay and allowances, due that member” for “forfeiture of pay and (if adjudged by a general court-martial) allowances due that member” in first sentence.

1996—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 104–201, § 1068(a)(1)(B), substituted “two-thirds of all pay” for “two-thirds of all pay and allowances” in third sentence.

Pub. L. 104–201, § 1068(a)(1)(A), which directed amendment of first sentence by inserting “(if adjudged by a general court-martial)” after “all pay and”, was executed by making the insertion after “of pay and” in first sentence to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective 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), see section 531(p) of Pub. L. 115–91, set out as a note under section 801 of this title.

Effective Date of 2016 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–328 effective on Jan. 1, 2019, as designated by the President, with implementing regulations and provisions relating to applicability to various situations, see section 5542 of Pub. L. 114–328 and Ex. Ord. No. 13825, set out as notes under section 801 of this title.

Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title X, § 1068(a)(2), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2655, provided that: “The amendments made by paragraph (1) [amending this section] shall take effect as of April 1, 1996, and shall apply to any case in which a sentence is adjudged by a court-martial on or after that date.”

Effective Date

Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title XI, § 1122(b), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 463, provided that: “The section (article) added by the amendment made by subsection (a)(1) [this section] shall apply to a case in which a sentence is adjudged by a court-martial on or after the first day of the first month that begins at least 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Feb. 10, 1996].”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 220 cases (40 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: United States v. Key, 57 M.J. 246 (C.A.A.F. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Key, 57 M.J. 246 (C.A.A.F. 2002). · cites it 6× “58b, UCMJ, 10 USC § 858b (provision governing waivers).”
United States v. Perron, 58 M.J. 78 (C.A.A.F. 2003). · cites it 3× “Upon review, and in accord with Article 58b, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 858b, I have acted upon your concerns.”
United States v. Williams, 53 M.J. 293 (C.A.A.F. 2000). · cites it 6× “The military judge then advised the appellant that the convening authority had agreed to waive for 6 months the automatic forfeitures required by Article 58b, 10 USC § 858b, "the benefit of that waiver being to your dependents.”
United States v. Anderson, 55 M.J. 198 (C.A.A.F. 2001). · cites it 2× “Automatic forfeitures were waived for 6 months in accordance with Article 58b, UCMJ, 10 USC § 858b. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence in an unpublished opinion.”
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, 63 M.J. 372 (C.A.A.F. 2006). · cites it 2× “See Article 58b, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 858b (2000). Reducing the period of confinement enough to have a significant impact upon collected forfeitures would also require 33 United States v.”
United States v. Lundy, 63 M.J. 299 (C.A.A.F. 2006). · cites it 2× “The sentence approved by the convening authority included a dishonorable discharge and confinement for eighteen years.”
United States v. Carter, 54 M.J. 414 (C.A.A.F. 2001). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to Article 58b(b), UCMJ, 10 USC § 858b(b), the convening authority waived the total forfeitures for 6 months.”
United States v. Gorski, 47 M.J. 370 (C.A.A.F. 1997). · cites it 2× “Opinion of the Court EVERETT, Senior Judge: This case presents an issue common to many cases now pending in this Court: Whether the 1996 addition of Article 58b, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 858b, concerning forfeiture of pay and allowances has an ex post facto…”
United States v. Emminizer, 56 M.J. 441 (C.A.A.F. 2002). · cites it 2× “58b, UCMJ, 10 USC § 858b). The legislative history of the restriction in Article 58b reflects congressional concern “that some military service members continue[d] to receive active duty pay and allowances while serving extended prison sentences.”
United States v. Alameda, 57 M.J. 190 (C.A.A.F. 2002). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to Article 58b, UCMJ, 10 USC § 858b, the convening authority waived automatic forfeitures for the benefit of appellant’s spouse and children.”
United States v. Walker, 57 M.J. 174 (C.A.A.F. 2002). · cites it 2× “The convening authority waived, for a period not to exceed six months, the automatic forfeitures resulting from the sentence under Article 58b, UCMJ, 10 USC § 858b. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence.”
United States v. Forbes, 61 M.J. 354 (C.A.A.F. 2005). · cites it 2× “The convening authority approved the sentence, suspended execution of the adjudged forfeitures, and waived execution of automatic forfeitures for a period of six months under Article 58b, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 858b (2000), with provision for payment of the suspended and waived…”
Show all 220 citing cases →
— 10 U.S.C. § 858b(a) — 16 cases
United States v. Perron, 58 M.J. 78 (C.A.A.F. 2003). “Upon review, and in accord with Article 58b, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 858b, I have acted upon your concerns.”
United States v. Key, 57 M.J. 246 (C.A.A.F. 2002). “58b, UCMJ, 10 USC § 858b (provision governing waivers).”
United States v. Pena, 64 M.J. 259 (C.A.A.F. 2007).
United States v. Emminizer, 56 M.J. 441 (C.A.A.F. 2002). “58b, UCMJ, 10 USC § 858b). The legislative history of the restriction in Article 58b reflects congressional concern “that some military service members continue[d] to receive active duty pay and allowances while serving extended prison sentences.”
United States v. Zimmer, 56 M.J. 869 (A.C.C.A. 2002).
— 10 U.S.C. § 858b(a)(1) — 7 cases
United States v. Pflueger, 65 M.J. 542 (N.M.C.C.A. 2006).
United States v. Guyton (C.A.A.F. 2022).
United States v. Blackburn (A.F.C.C.A. 2021).
United States v. Fumega (A.F.C.C.A. 2022).
United States v. Matthew (A.F.C.C.A. 2024).
— 10 U.S.C. § 858b(a)(2)(b) — 1 case
United States v. Kallmeyer, 54 M.J. 685 (A.F.C.C.A. 2001).
— 10 U.S.C. § 858b(a)(l) — 5 cases
United States v. Hammond, 61 M.J. 676 (A.C.C.A. 2005).
United States v. Rendon, 57 M.J. 795 (2002).
United States v. Kallmeyer, 54 M.J. 685 (A.F.C.C.A. 2001).
United States v. O'Shields, 57 M.J. 535 (A.F.C.C.A. 2002).
United States v. Lindsey, 67 M.J. 774 (2009).
— 10 U.S.C. § 858b(b) — 35 cases
United States v. Carter, 54 M.J. 414 (C.A.A.F. 2001). “Pursuant to Article 58b(b), UCMJ, 10 USC § 858b(b), the convening authority waived the total forfeitures for 6 months.”
United States v. Key, 57 M.J. 246 (C.A.A.F. 2002). “58b, UCMJ, 10 USC § 858b (provision governing waivers).”
United States v. Brooks, 64 M.J. 325 (C.A.A.F. 2007).
United States v. Lundy, 60 M.J. 52 (C.A.A.F. 2004).
United States v. Briggs, 64 M.J. 285 (C.A.A.F. 2007).
— 10 U.S.C. § 858b(c) — 22 cases
United States v. Craion, 64 M.J. 531 (A.C.C.A. 2006).
United States v. Specialist MELANIE A. MCPHERSON, 68 M.J. 526 (A.C.C.A. 2009).
United States v. Bright, 63 M.J. 683 (A.C.C.A. 2006).
United States v. Lundy, 60 M.J. 941 (A.C.C.A. 2005).
United States v. Major KENDALL M. AMAZAKI, JR., 67 M.J. 666 (A.C.C.A. 2009).
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.