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 IX— POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND REVIEW OF COURTS-MARTIAL
10 U.S.C. § 875
Art. 75. Restoration
(a) Under such regulations as the President may prescribe, all rights, privileges, and property affected by an executed part of a court-martial sentence which has been set aside or disapproved, except an executed dismissal or discharge, shall be restored unless a new trial or rehearing is ordered and such executed part is included in a sentence imposed upon the new trial or rehearing.(b) If a previously executed sentence of dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge is not imposed on a new trial, the Secretary concerned shall substitute therefor a form of discharge authorized for administrative issuance unless the accused is to serve out the remainder of his enlistment.(c) If a previously executed sentence of dismissal is not imposed on a new trial, the Secretary concerned shall substitute therefor a form of discharge authorized for administrative issue, and the commissioned officer dismissed by that sentence may be reappointed by the President alone to such commissioned grade and with such rank as in the opinion of the President that former officer would have attained had he not been dismissed. The reappointment of such a former officer shall be without regard to the existence of a vacancy and shall affect the promotion status of other officers only insofar as the President may direct. All time between the dismissal and the reappointment shall be considered as actual service for all purposes, including the right to pay and allowances.(d) The President shall prescribe regulations, with such limitations as the President considers appropriate, governing eligibility for pay and allowances for the period after the date on which an executed part of a court-martial sentence is set aside.(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 63; Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LIX, § 5337, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2937.)In subsections (b) and (c), the word “If” is substituted for the word “Where”. The word “imposed” is substituted for the word “sustained”. The words “Secretary concerned” are substituted for the words “Secretary of the Department”.
In subsection (c), the word “issue” is substituted for the word “issuance”. The word “commissioned” is inserted for clarity. The words “grade and with such rank” are substituted for the words “rank and precedence”, since a person is appointed to a grade, not a position of precedence, and the word “rank” is the accepted military word denoting the general idea of precedence. The words “the existence of a” are substituted for the word “position”. The word “receive” is omitted as surplusage.
Editorial NotesAmendments2016—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 114–328 added subsec. (d).
Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2016 AmendmentAmendment 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.
Executive DocumentsDelegation of FunctionsFor delegation to Secretary of Homeland Security of certain authority vested in President by this section, see section 2(b) of Ex. Ord. No. 10637, Sept. 16, 1955, 20 F.R. 7025, as amended, set out as a note under section 301 of Title 3, The President.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
42
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1963–2025 · leading case:
United States v. Howell, 75 M.J. 386 (C.A.A.F. 2016).
United States v. Howell, 75 M.J. 386 (C.A.A.F. 2016).
· cites it 4× “This determination necessarily requires interpretation of Article 75(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 875 (a) (2012), and how this article applies when court-martial findings and sentences have been set aside by an appellate court.”
Combs v. United States, 50 Fed. Cl. 592 (Fed. Cl. 2001).
· cites it 8× “The specific statute that addresses the situation presented in this time period is 10 U.S.C. § 875 (a), which states: Restoration (a) Under such regulations as the President may prescribe, all rights, privileges, and property affected by an executed part of a court-martial…”
Carlisle v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 627 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
· cites it 3× “It noted that the court’s order in the latter regard was dictated by 10 U.S.C. § 875 (a), which provides that “all rights, privileges, and property affected by an executed part of a court-martial sentence which has been set aside or disapproved .”
Sheridon H. Groves v. United States, 47 F.3d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
· cites it 3× “, Fort Hood (May 8, 1987) (paraphrasing 10 U.S.C. § 875 (a) (1988)). On January 22, 1991, Groves was discharged from the Ready Reserve, effective December 21, 1990.”
Longhofer v. United States, 29 Fed. Cl. 595 (Fed. Cl. 1993).
· cites it 4× “He claims that, under 10 U.S.C. § 875 , 2 he is entitled to “all rights, privileges and property” affected by his improper court-martial conviction, which was subsequently set aside.”
Sharpe v. United States, 935 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
“We reversed, noting that, under 10 U.S.C. § 875 (a) Groves was entitled to the restoration of "all rights, privileges, and property affected by an executed part of a court-martial sentence which has been set aside or disproved.”
Brown v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 139 (Fed. Cl. 1998).
· cites it 3× “Motion for summary judgment based on 10 U.S.C. § 875 (a) A motion to dismiss pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(4) for failure to state a cause of action requires a determination on the merits.”
United States v. Garman, 59 M.J. 677 (A.C.C.A. 2003).
“75(a), 10 U.S.C. § 875 (a). Judge BARTO and Judge SCHENCK concur.”
United States v. Harding, 61 M.J. 526 (A.C.C.A. 2005).
“All rights, privileges, and property of which appellant has been deprived by virtue of that portion of his sentence set aside by this decision are ordered restored as mandated by Article 75(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 875 (a). Judge JOHNSON and Judge MOORE concur.”
Dock v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl. 62 (Fed. Cl. 1992).
· cites it 3× “In support of this result, defendant points to the language of Article 75(a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 875 (a)(1988). This statute, which deals with the restoration of benefits affected by a court-martial sentence later invalidated, provides in…”
Groves v. United States, 30 Fed. Cl. 28 (Fed. Cl. 1993).
· cites it 4× “§ 681 (a), 10 U.S.C. § 875 (a), AR 635-100, H3-71b and H3-71c in the light of the final decision by the Court of Military Appeals.”
Todd A. Dock, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. United States, 46 F.3d 1083 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
“In the context formed by these rather general principles of military law, Congress enacted the more specific Article 75(a) as part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, now codified at 10 U.S.C. § 875 (a). 7 Article 75(a) provides: Under such regulations as the President may…”
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.