37 U.S.C. § 701

Members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Space Force; contract surgeons

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 37 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the military department concerned, a commissioned officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Space Force may transfer or assign the officer’s pay account, when due and payable.(b) A contract surgeon, or contract dental surgeon, of the Army, Navy, or Air Force, on duty in Alaska, Hawaii, the Philippine Islands, or Puerto Rico, may transfer or assign the person’s pay account, when due and payable, under the regulations prescribed under subsection (a).(c) An enlisted member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Space Force may not assign the member’s pay, and if the member does so, the assignment is void.(d) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Space Force and a contract surgeon of the Army, Navy, or Air Force may make allotments from the pay of the member or surgeon for the purpose of supporting relatives or for any other purpose that the Secretary considers proper. Such allotments may include a maximum of six allotments considered to be discretionary under such regulations. For a member or former member entitled to retired or retainer pay, a maximum of six discretionary allotments authorized during active military service may be continued into retired status, and new discretionary allotments may be authorized so long as the total number of discretionary allotments does not exceed six.(e) If an allotment made under subsection (d) is paid to the allottee before the disbursing officer receives a notice of discontinuance from the officer required by regulation to furnish the notice, the amount of the allotment shall be credited to the disbursing officer. If an allotment is erroneously paid because the officer required by regulation to so report failed to report the death of the allotter or any other fact that makes the allotment not payable, the amount of the payment not recovered from the allottee shall, if practicable, be collected by the Secretary concerned from the officer who failed to make the report.(Pub. L. 87–649, Sept. 7, 1962, 76 Stat. 484; Pub. L. 89–718, § 67, Nov. 2, 1966, 80 Stat. 1123; Pub. L. 99–145, title VI, § 683(a)(1), (2), Nov. 8, 1985, 99 Stat. 665; Pub. L. 102–25, title VII, § 702(b)(1), (c), Apr. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 117; Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title VI, § 651(a), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2582; Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title IX, § 925(h)(1)–(3), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 3828.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
701(a)	10:3689(a).	[None.]
	10:8689(a).	[None.]
701(b)	10:3689(b)	[None.]
	10:8689(b).	[None.]
701(c)	10:3689(c).	[None.]
	10:8689(c).	[None.]
701(d)	10:3689(d).	[None.]
	10:8689(d).	[None.]

Editorial NotesAmendments

2021—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 116–283, § 925(h)(1), (2)(A), substituted “Marine Corps, or Space Force” for “or Marine Corps” and “the officer’s” for “his”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 116–283, § 925(h)(2)(B), substituted “the person’s” for “his”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 116–283, § 925(h)(1), (2)(C), substituted “Marine Corps, or Space Force” for “or Marine Corps” and “the member’s pay, and if the member does so” for “his pay, and if he does so”.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 116–283, § 925(h)(1), substituted “Marine Corps, or Space Force” for “or Marine Corps”.

1996—Subsecs. (d), (e). Pub. L. 104–201 added subsecs. (d) and (e) and struck out former subsec. (d) which read as follows: “The Secretary of the military department concerned, may allow a—

“(1) member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps; or

“(2) contract surgeon of the Army, Navy, or Air Force;

to make allotments from his pay for the support of his relatives, or for any other purpose that the Secretary concerned considers proper. If an allotment made under this subsection is paid to the allottee before the disbursing officer receives a notice of discontinuance from the officer required by regulation to furnish the notice, the amount of the allotment shall be credited to the disbursing officer. If an allotment is erroneously paid because the officer required by regulation to so report failed to report the death of the allotter or any other fact that makes the allotment not payable, the amount of the payment not recovered from the allottee shall, if practicable, be collected by the Secretary concerned, from the officer who failed to make the report.”

1991—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 102–25 struck out “of this section” after “subsection (a)”.

1985—Pub. L. 99–145, § 683(a)(2), inserted reference to Navy and Marine Corps in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 99–145, § 683(a)(1)(A), (C), substituted “Secretary of the military department concerned” for “Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force, as the case may be” and “commissioned officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps” for “commissioned officer of the Army or the Air Force”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 99–145, § 683(a)(1)(B), inserted reference to Navy.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 99–145, § 683(a)(1)(A), inserted reference to Navy and Marine Corps.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 99–145, § 683(a)(1)(C), substituted “Secretary of the military department concerned” for “Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force, as the case may be”.

Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 99–145, § 683(a)(1)(A), inserted reference to Navy and Marine Corps.

Subsec. (d)(2). Pub. L. 99–145, § 683(a)(1)(B), inserted reference to Navy.

1966—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 89–718 substituted “Secretary concerned” for “Chief of Finance (in cases involving the Army) or by the Secretary of the Air Force” in provision for collection erroneously paid allotments.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesRegulations

Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title VI, § 651(b), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2582, provided that: “The Secretaries of the military departments shall prescribe regulations under subsection (d) of section 701 of title 37, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), not later than October 1, 1997.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 25 cases, 1968–2019 · leading case: Structured Investments Co. v. Dunlap (In Re Dunlap), 458 B.R. 301 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Structured Investments Co. v. Dunlap (In Re Dunlap), 458 B.R. 301 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2011). · cites it 24× “Dunlap asserts that the holding in Moorhous — that an attempted assignment of military retirement pay does not vest a creditor with ownership in the military pay due to the anti-assignment provision contained in 37 U.S.C. § 701 — prevented SICO from taking a property interest in…”

Structured Investments Co. v. Price (In Re Price), 313 B.R. 805 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2004). · cites it 7× “37 U.S.C. § 701 (2000). The rationale for this statute was explained by the Fourth Circuit in the case of Dorfman v.”

Bankr. L. Rep. P 77,292 in Re Dudley M. Moorhous, Jr., Debtor. Earl Dorfman Sharon Dorfman v. Dudley M. Moorhous, Jr. Dorothy Moorhous, 108 F.3d 51 (4th Cir. 1997). · cites it 5× “§ 701 , which provides in pertinent part: (a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the military department concerned, a commissioned officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may transfer or assign his pay account, when due and payable.”

Goad v. United States, 24 Cl. Ct. 777 (Ct. Cl. 1991). · cites it 6× “First, the plaintiff contends that regardless of the passage of the USFSPA, 37 U.S.C. § 701 (c) remains valid and therefore still applies to community property claims.”

Goad v. United States, 661 F. Supp. 1073 (S.D. Tex. 1987). · cites it 3× “The AFAFC’s direct payments to Mary Beth Goad are in violation of 37 U.S.C. § 701 (e). 5. The FSPA is unconstitutional because it deprives Plaintiff of due process and equal protection.”

Nathan S. Smith v. Commanding Officer, Air Force Acct. & Fin. Ctr., Arthur R. Grimm & Jeannine Grimm, 555 F.2d 234 (9th Cir. 1977). · cites it 2× “” 1 However, Smith cites no cases holding that an action by the assignee of an account allegedly assignable under 37 U.S.C. § 701 (a) “arises under” that statute for the purposes of conferring federal question jurisdiction.”

Bowden v. Structured Investments Co. (In Re Bowden), 315 B.R. 903 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2004). · cites it 2× “” 37 U.S.C. § 701 (c). Military retired pay is actually reduced wages, id.”

Mary Frances Erspan, Cross-Appellant v. Lloyd J. Badgett, Cross-Appellee, 659 F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1981). “2 *29 Similarly, defendant’s argument that 37 U.S.C. § 701 (a) 3 evinces a congressional intent that military retirement benefits be exempt from division on divorce as community property is of no avail.”

Dorfman v. Moorhous (In Re Moorhous), 180 B.R. 138 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1995). · cites it 2× “The only statute squarely speaking to the question of assignability is 37 U.S.C. § 701 , which both parties cite as controlling, although, not surprisingly, they disagree in their interpretation of it.”

Fern v. United States, 15 Cl. Ct. 580 (Ct. Cl. 1988). · cites it 2× “For example, division of retired pay by community property state courts does not fall within the prohibitions contained in the Anti-Assignment Statute, relied on by plaintiffs, 37 U.”

In Re Pierson, 447 B.R. 840 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2011). · cites it 6× “For this purpose, and although not expressly cited, it may be assumed that the Debtors’ position, regarding the unenforceability of their Agreement with Structured Investments, is founded upon the restraint on alienation contained in 37 U.S.C. § 701 (c). 1 Title 37 of the United…”

In Re Marriage of Ellis, 538 P.2d 1347 (Colo. Ct. App. 1975). “See 37 U.S.C. § 701 (a) ; 6 C.J.S. Assignments § 21.”

Show all 25 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.