31 U.S.C. § 1349

Adverse personnel actions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 31 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government violating section 1341(a) or 1342 of this title shall be subject to appropriate administrative discipline including, when circumstances warrant, suspension from duty without pay or removal from office.(b) An officer or employee who willfully uses or authorizes the use of a passenger motor vehicle or aircraft owned or leased by the United States Government (except for an official purpose authorized by section 1344 of this title) or otherwise violates section 1344 shall be suspended without pay by the head of the agency. The officer or employee shall be suspended for at least one month, and when circumstances warrant, for a longer period or summarily removed from office.(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 926.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised Section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
1349(a)	31:665(i)(1)(words before semicolon related to (a), (b)).	R.S. § 3679(i)(1)(words before semicolon related to (a), (b)); Mar. 3, 1905, ch. 1484, § 4(1st par.), 33 Stat. 1257; Feb. 27, 1906, ch. 510, § 3, 34 Stat. 48; restated Sept. 6, 1950, ch. 896, § 1211, 64 Stat. 768.
1349(b)	31:638a(c)(2)(2d sentence).	July 16, 1914, ch. 141, § 5(c)(2)(2d sentence), 38 Stat. 508; restated Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 744, § 16(a), 60 Stat. 810.

In subsection (a), the words “In addition to any penalty or liability under other law” are omitted as surplus. The words “District of Columbia government” are added because of section 47–105 of the D.C. Code.

In subsection (b), the words “of the Government” and “from duty” are omitted as unnecessary because of the restatement. The word “pay” is substituted for “compensation” for consistency. The word “agency” is substituted for “department” because of section 101 of the revised title and for consistency.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 44 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (1988). · cites it 2× “) (now codified at 31 U. S. C. § 1349 (b)). FWS offered respondent backpay from February 15, 1981, the date his 30-day suspension would have ended, through September 18, 1981, the date the camp was closed.”

Cornelius v. Nutt, 472 U.S. 648 (1985). · cites it 2× “See 31 U. S. C. § 1349 (b). It therefore ordered the imposition of a one month's suspension for Rogers.”

Clarence Seay, Jr. v. Tennessee Valley Auth. Craven Crowell, 339 F.3d 454 (6th Cir. 2003). “31 U.S.C. § 1349 . As to Count 128, Plaintiff argues that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether the suspension was appropriate.”

Donald J. Devine v. Allison E. Nutt, 718 F.2d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1983). · cites it 3× “In requiring Rogers to serve a two-week suspension for unauthorized use of a patrol vehicle, the arbitrator disregarded the explicit mandatory requirement of 31 U.S.C. § 1349 (b)(1982), see supra note 10.”

Kevin R. Kimm v. Dep't of the Treasury, 61 F.3d 888 (Fed. Cir. 1995). · cites it 3× “Kimm was suspended for willfully using a government-owned vehicle for other than official purposes in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 1349 (b). Because the board’s determination that Kimm’s use was willful was not supported by substantial evidence, we reverse.”

Daniel Moncada v. Exec. Off. of the President, Off. of Admin., 2022 MSPB 25 (MSPB 2022). “ID at 20-21; see 31 U.S.C. § 1349 (b) (requiring a minimum penalty of a 1-month suspension for willful misuse of a Government passenger vehicle).”

Adams v. United States, 40 Fed. Cl. 303 (Fed. Cl. 1998). “See 31 U.S.C. § 1349 (b). This reticulate mass of statutory and regulatory law expressly contemplating suspensions for even high-level government employees is further evidence that DoL’s disciplinary-deduction rule is not at home in the federal arena.”

Dejustice Coleman v. United States Secret Serv., 749 F.2d 726 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “§ 638a(c)(2) (1976) (now 31 U.S.C. § 1349 (b) (1982)). The government responds that petitioner’s return trip home was not authorized because November 6 was an off duty day, and petitioner’s 10-hour detour “on the town” was personal and included the consumption of alcoholic…”

Fausto v. United States, 7 Cl. Ct. 459 (Ct. Cl. 1985). “Because plaintiff admits that he willfully misused a government vehicle, see Defendant’s Cross-Motion Attachment C, he is subject to a statutorily mandated suspension without pay for not less than one month.”

E. Band of Cherokee Indians v. United States, 16 Cl. Ct. 75 (Ct. Cl. 1988). “Penalties for violating the Anti-Deficiency Act are codified at 31 U.S.C. §§ 1349 and 1350. The court thus finds that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as funds are not available to satisfy plaintiffs’ claim.”

Baltimore v. Clinton, 900 F. Supp. 2d 21 (D.D.C. 2012). · cites it 3× “Charge 3: Willful Misuse of a Government-Owned Vehicle The final charge against the Ambassador is that he violated 31 U.S.C. § 1349 and 5 C.F.R. § 2635.704 by authorizing his wife to use a government-owned vehicle.”

Sammie D. Felton v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, 820 F.2d 391 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “481 , sustaining her suspension for 30 days from a position with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (agency) on the basis that she had authorized a clerical employee to use a government-owned car for nonofficial purposes in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 1349 (b) (1982). We…”

Show all 44 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.