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 X— PUNITIVE ARTICLES

10 U.S.C. § 932

Art. 132. Retaliation

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)In General.—Any person subject to this chapter who, with the intent to retaliate against any person for reporting or planning to report a criminal offense, or making or planning to make a protected communication, or with the intent to discourage any person from reporting a criminal offense or making or planning to make a protected communication—(1) wrongfully takes or threatens to take an adverse personnel action against any person; or(2) wrongfully withholds or threatens to withhold a favorable personnel action with respect to any person;shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.(b)Definitions.—In this section:(1) The term “protected communication” means the following:(A) A lawful communication to a Member of Congress or an Inspector General.(B) A communication to a covered individual or organization in which a member of the armed forces complains of, or discloses information that the member reasonably believes constitutes evidence of, any of the following:(i) A violation of law or regulation, including a law or regulation prohibiting sexual harassment or unlawful discrimination.(ii) Gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.(2) The term “Inspector General” has the meaning given that term in section 1034(j) of this title.(3) The term “covered individual or organization” means any recipient of a communication specified in clauses (i) through (v) of section 1034(b)(1)(B) of this title.(4) The term “unlawful discrimination” means discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.(Added Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LX, § 5450, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2957; amended Pub. L. 115–91, div. A, title X, § 1081(c)(1)(Q), Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1599.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 932 was renumbered section 924 of this title.

Amendments

2017—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 115–91 substituted “section 1034(j)” for “section 1034(h)”.

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 1081(c)(4) of Pub. L. 115–91, set out as a note under section 801 of this title.

Effective Date

Section 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.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 88 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1939–2024 · leading case: Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). · cites it 2× “§1522 (a)(5) (Authorization for Pro- grams for Domestic Resettlement of and Assis- tance to Refugees)  10 U. S. C. §932 (b)(4) (Uniform Code of Military Justice; Article 132 Retaliation)  10 U.”
United States v. Dykes, 38 M.J. 270 (1993). “Pursuant to his pleas, appellant was found guilty of presenting a false writing to obtain the approval and payment of a claim against the United States, in violation of Article 132, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 932 . He was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge,…”
United States v. Oliver, 57 M.J. 170 (C.A.A.F. 2002). · cites it 2× “Appellant was tried by a special court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members and, contrary to his pleas, was found guilty of three specifications of fraud against the United States, in violation of Article 132, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 USC § 932 .…”
United States v. Ward, 16 M.J. 341 (1983). · cites it 2× “this claim from the Government; two specifications of obtaining government services under false pretenses; and five specifications of aiding and abetting the making of a false writing in connection with a claim against the United States presented for approval and payment by two…”
United States v. Carpenter, 1 M.J. 384 (1976). “OPINION OF THE COURT COOK, Judge: Contrary to his pleas, the accused was convicted by general court-martial at Fort Wadsworth, Brooklyn, New York, of numerous specifications alleging the presentment of false claims against the United States and the use of false documents to…”
United States v. Acton, 38 M.J. 330 (1993). “Opinion of the Court GIERKE, Judge: A general court-martial composed of officer members convicted appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of presenting a false claim, in violation of Article 132, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 932 . The court-martial also convicted…”
United States v. Reynolds, 24 M.J. 261 (1987). “Opinion of the Court COX, Judge: Tried by general court-martial, 1 this appellant was convicted of a Charge and specification under Article 132, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 932 , alleging he made a false claim against the United States Government.”
United States v. Tatum, 34 M.J. 1115 (1992). · cites it 3× “Contrary to his pleas, he was found guilty of one specification of fraud 1 (Additional Charge I) and one specification of dishonorable failure to support his dependents 2 (Additional Charge II), in violation of UCMJ, Articles 132 3 and 134, 4 10 U.S.C. §§ 932 and 934. He was…”
United States v. Cleveland, 29 M.J. 361 (1990). “A charge with two specifications alleging presentation of false claims against the United States, in violation of Article 132, UCMJ, 10 USC § 932 , was dismissed after arraignment but prior to pleas.”
United States v. Olson, 25 M.J. 293 (1987). “44, and obstructing justice, in violation of Articles 132 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 932 and 934, respectively. The sentence as adjudged and approved was a bad-conduct discharge, a fine of $1,000.”
United States v. Rosen, 9 C.M.A. 175 (1958). · cites it 2× “Thirteen specifications of misconduct were laid under Charge I as violations of Article 132, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 932 , which pertains to frauds against the Government, and one specification of larceny, in violation of Article 121, 10 USC § 921 , was…”
United States v. Siders, 15 M.J. 272 (1983). “Opinion of the Court PER CURIAM: Tried by special court-martial, military judge alone, the accused was convicted, pursuant to his pleas, of presenting a false claim and making a false writing, in violation of Article 132, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 932 . The…”
Show all 88 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.