32 U.S.C. § 324

Discharge of officers; termination of appointment

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 32 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) An officer of the National Guard shall be discharged when—(1) he becomes 64 years of age; or(2) his Federal recognition is withdrawn.The official who would be authorized to appoint him shall give him a discharge certificate.(b) Subject to subsection (a), the appointment of an officer of the National Guard may be terminated or vacated as provided by the laws of the State of whose National Guard he is a member, or by the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, of whose National Guard he is a member.(c) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(1), an officer of the National Guard serving as a chaplain, medical officer, dental officer, nurse, veterinarian, Medical Service Corps officer, or biomedical sciences officer may be retained, with the officer’s consent, until the date on which the officer becomes 68 years of age.(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 607; Pub. L. 100–456, div. A, title XII, § 1234(b)(6), Sept. 29, 1988, 102 Stat. 2059; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title X, § 1057(b)(5), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3441; Pub. L. 110–417, [div. A], title V, § 516(b), Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4442; Pub. L. 111–383, div. A, title X, § 1075(h)(4)(C), Jan. 7, 2011, 124 Stat. 4377.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

324(a)

324(b)

32:114 (less 1st sentence).

32:114 (1st sentence).

June 3, 1916, ch. 134, § 77; restated June 15, 1933, ch. 87, § 14; restated June 19, 1935, ch. 277, § 4, 49 Stat. 391; July 9, 1952, ch. 608, § 803 (11th par.), 66 Stat. 505.

In subsection (a), the words “shall be discharged” are substituted for the words “shall thereupon cease to be a member thereof” since an official is required to give the officer a discharge certificate. The words “becomes 64 years of age” are substituted for the words “upon reaching the age of sixty-four years”. The words “his Federal recognition is withdrawn” are substituted for the words “When Federal recognition is withdrawn * * * as provided in section 115 of this title”.

In subsection (b), the words “Subject to subsection (a)” are inserted for clarity. The words “as provided by the laws” are substituted for the words “in such manner as * * * shall provide by law”.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2011—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 111–383 amended directory language of Pub. L. 109–163, § 1057(b)(5). See 2006 Amendment note below.

2008—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 110–417 added subsec. (c).

2006—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 109–163, § 1057(b)(5), as amended by Pub. L. 111–383, substituted “State of whose National Guard he is a member, or by the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, of whose National Guard he is a member” for “State or Territory of whose National Guard he is a member, or by the laws of Puerto Rico or the District of Columbia, if he is a member of its National Guard”.

1988—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 100–456 struck out “, the Canal Zone,” after “Puerto Rico”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2011 Amendment

Pub. L. 111–383, div. A, title X, § 1075(h), Jan. 7, 2011, 124 Stat. 4377, provided that the amendment made by section 1075(h)(4)(C) is effective as of Jan. 6, 2006, and as if included in Pub. L. 109–163 as enacted.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1981–2008 · leading case: Walch v. Adjutant Gen.'s Dep't, 533 F.3d 289 (5th Cir. 2008).
Walch v. Adjutant Gen.'s Dep't, 533 F.3d 289 (5th Cir. 2008). “32 U.S.C. § 324 . However, if in fact no certificate has yet been sent him, a largely ministerial act it would appear that may have been delayed pending the outcome of this suit, and if Major Walch’s requests at this stage with the Texas National Guard fail to produce such a…”
Hanson v. Wyatt, 552 F.3d 1148 (10th Cir. 2008). “To pluck but one example: " 32 U.S.C. § 324 requires Adjutants General to supervise National Guard officers.”
State, Dep't of Military & Vets. Affairs v. Bowen, 953 P.2d 888 (Alaska 1998). · cites it 3× “First, 32 U.S.C. § 324 (b) allows termination of a National Guard officer “as provided by *895 the laws of the State.”
Holmes v. California Army Nat'l Guard, 920 F. Supp. 1510 (N.D. Cal. 1996). · cites it 3× “) In support of this contention, the California defendants’ rely primarily on 32 U.S.C. § 324 (a), which they assert directly compels the states to discharge National Guard officers who lose their federal recognition.”
Est. of Himsel v. State, 36 P.3d 35 (Alaska 2001). · cites it 2× “[34] See 32 U.S.C. § 324 (b). [35] Bowen, 953 P.2d at 894, 894-95 .”
Kise v. Dep't of Military & Vets. Affairs, 784 A.2d 253 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “" 32 U.S.C. § 324 (b). The State court therefore concluded that State procedural protections were implicated.”
Glenn T. Schultz v. Major Gen. Billy G. Wellman, Brigadier Gen. Carl Black, & Lieutenant Colonel John B. Greene, 717 F.2d 301 (6th Cir. 1983). “See also 32 U.S.C. § 324 (b) (relating to the discharge of officers).”
Archer Frey v. State of California State of California Military Dep't, 982 F.2d 399 (9th Cir. 1993). “See 32 U.S.C. § 324 (b) (“the appointment of an officer of the National Guard may be terminated or vacated as provided by the laws of the State or Territory of whose National Guard he is a member”); 32 U.”
Looper v. Thrash, 972 S.W.2d 250 (Ark. 1998). “That was due to 32 U.S.C. § 324 (a) (1994), which provides: An officer of the National Guard shall be discharged when— (1) he becomes 64 years of age; or (2) his Federal recognition is withdrawn.”
Farmer v. Mabus, 757 F. Supp. 1462 (S.D. Miss. 1991). · cites it 2× “§ 322 (c) (requiring adjutant general to administer and discharge enlisted men in the National Guard); 32 U.S.C. § 324 (b) (requiring adjutant general to supervise National Guard officers as prescribed by state law).”
Walch v. Adjutant Gen Dept TX (5th Cir. 2008). “32 U.S.C. § 324 . However, if in fact no certificate has yet been sent him, a largely ministerial administrative act it would appear, and if Major Walch’s requests at this stage with the Texas National Guard fail to produce such a certificate, then there are administrative…”
Walch v. Adjutant Gen Dept TX (5th Cir. 2008). “32 U.S.C. § 324 . However, if in fact no certificate has yet been sent him, a largely ministerial act it would appear that may have been delayed pending the outcome of this suit, and if Major Walch’s requests at this stage with the Texas National Guard fail to produce such a…”
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.