10 U.S.C. § 939

Art. 139. Redress of injuries to property

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Whenever complaint is made to any commanding officer that willful damage has been done to the property of any person or that his property has been wrongfully taken by members of the armed forces, he may, under such regulations as the Secretary concerned may prescribe, convene a board to investigate the complaint. The board shall consist of from one to three commissioned officers and, for the purpose of that investigation, it has power to summon witnesses and examine them upon oath, to receive depositions or other documentary evidence, and to assess the damages sustained against the responsible parties. The assessment of damages made by the board is subject to the approval of the commanding officer, and in the amount approved by him shall be charged against the pay of the offenders. The order of the commanding officer directing charges herein authorized is conclusive on any disbursing officer for the payment by him to the injured parties of the damages so assessed and approved.(b) If the offenders cannot be ascertained, but the organization or detachment to which they belong is known, charges totaling the amount of damages assessed and approved may be made in such proportion as may be considered just upon the individual members thereof who are shown to have been present at the scene at the time the damages complained of were inflicted, as determined by the approved findings of the board.(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 78.)

Historical and Revision Notes
939(a) 939(b)	50:735(a). 50:735(b).	May 5, 1950, ch. 169, § 1 (Art. 139), 64 Stat. 144.

Historical and Revision Notes

939(a)

939(b)

50:735(a).

50:735(b).

May 5, 1950, ch. 169, § 1 (Art. 139), 64 Stat. 144.

In subsection (a), the words “Secretary concerned” are substituted for the words “Secretary of the Department”. The word “under” is substituted for the words “subject to”. The words “or affirmation” are omitted as covered by the definition of the word “oath” in section 1 of title 1. The words “it has” are substituted for the words “shall have” in the second sentence. The word “is” is substituted for the words “shall be” before the words “subject” and “conclusive”. The word “commissioned” is inserted for clarity.

In subsection (b), the word “If” is substituted for the word “Where”. The word “considered” is substituted for the word “deemed”.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1968–2022 · leading case: United States v. Ellerbrock, 70 M.J. 314 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Ellerbrock, 70 M.J. 314 (C.A.A.F. 2011). “However, the defense did not demonstrate that this evidence was 5 Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 939 (a) (2006). 12 United States v.”

Canuto v. United States, 673 F. App'x 982 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “§ 2679 ; 10 U.S.C. § 939 (relating to procedures for addressing property damage claims under Uniform Code of Military Justice); the Military Claims Act, 10 U.”

United States v. Henson, 58 M.J. 529 (N.M.C.C.A. 2003). “At the time of trial, insurance deductibles and other related expenses had not yet been fully reimbursed under Article 139, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 939 . . See, e.g., R.C.M. 1001(b)(4) (allowing evidence that offense was hate crime to be presented to sentencing authority).”

United States v. Brown, 4 M.J. 654 (1977). “§ 1007 (c); Article 139, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 939 . . 37 U.S.C. § 804 . . Department of Defense, Military Pay and Allowances Manual, paragraph 10316b (1 Jan.”

United States v. Henderson, 23 M.J. 860 (1987). “The filing of the Article 139, 10 U.S.C. § 939 claim is but a manifestation of this fact.”

Dukes v. Smith, 34 M.J. 803 (1991). “§ 938 ; or, even a claim of damage to property pursuant to Article 139, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 939 . See McPhail at 463 . We cannot and will not arrogate to ourselves an authority that clearly is beyond that granted by statute or contemplated by Congress.”

Fox v. Brown, 402 F.2d 837 (2d Cir. 1968). “Judge Pollack denied the application, ruling that reasonable notice had been allowed, that any claim that Fox was activated for an excessive *840 period should be raised while on active duty, Fox’s complained of wrongs are redressable within the military and not the court…”

Fox v. Brown, 286 F. Supp. 855 (S.D.N.Y. 1968). “10 U.S.C. § 939 et seq. The claim to separation on the ground of hardship failed to meet the standards of Public Law 89-687, 80 Stat.”

United States v. Ali (N.M.C.C.A. 2022). “9 7 10 U.S.C. § 939 (a). 8 Aff. of Appellant (dated 16 December 2021) [Aff.”

Rytlewski v. Gov't of The United States (S.D.N.Y. 2020). “Plaintiff purportedly brings this action under Article 139 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 939 , but nothing in that statute suggests that a veteran is exempt from the statutory filing fee requirements of 28 U.”

United States v. Fenwrick, 59 M.J. 737 (A.F.C.C.A. 2003). “In an Article 39(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 939 (a) session, the trial counsel submitted a motion, including an affidavit from the convening authority, asking the military judge to reconsider her earlier ruling.”

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.