U.S. Code » Title 38 » Part PART IV— GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS › Chapter CHAPTER 61— PENAL AND FORFEITURE PROVISIONS

38 U.S.C. § 6104

Forfeiture for treason

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 38 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Any person shown by evidence satisfactory to the Secretary to be guilty of mutiny, treason, sabotage, or rendering assistance to an enemy of the United States or of its allies shall forfeit all accrued or future gratuitous benefits under laws administered by the Secretary.(b) The Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may apportion and pay any part of benefits forfeited under subsection (a) to the dependents of the person forfeiting such benefits. No dependent of any person shall receive benefits by reason of this subsection in excess of the amount to which the dependent would be entitled if such person were dead.(c) In the case of any forfeiture under this section there shall be no authority after September 1, 1959 (1) to make an apportionment award pursuant to subsection (b) or (2) to make an award to any person of gratuitous benefits based on any period of military, naval, air, or space service commencing before the date of commission of the offense.(Pub. L. 85–857, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1240, § 3504; Pub. L. 86–222, § 2, Sept. 1, 1959, 73 Stat. 452; Pub. L. 91–24, § 13(b), June 11, 1969, 83 Stat. 34; Pub. L. 97–295, § 4(78), Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1311; Pub. L. 99–576, title VII, § 701(84), Oct. 28, 1986, 100 Stat. 3298; renumbered § 6104, Pub. L. 102–40, title IV, § 402(b)(1), May 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 238; Pub. L. 102–83, § 4(a)(1), (b)(1), (2)(E), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 403–405; Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title IX, § 926(a)(56), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 3830.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2021—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 116–283 substituted “air, or space service” for “or air service”.

1991—Pub. L. 102–40 renumbered section 3504 of this title as this section.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–83, § 4(b)(1), (2)(E), substituted “Secretary” for “Administrator”.

Pub. L. 102–83, § 4(a)(1), substituted “administered by the Secretary” for “administered by the Veterans’ Administration”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 102–83, § 4(b)(1), (2)(E), substituted “Secretary” for “Administrator” and “Secretary’s” for “Administrator’s”.

1986—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 99–576 substituted “the Administrator’s” for “his” and “the dependent” for “he”.

1982—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 97–295 inserted “to” before “be guilty”.

1969—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 91–24 substituted “September 1, 1959” for “the date of enactment of this subsection”.

1959—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 86–222 added subsec. (c).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2021 · leading case: Tulingan v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 484 (Vet. App. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tulingan v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 484 (Vet. App. 1996). · cites it 14× “Tulingan, appeals an April 21, 1994, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board) which sustained a forfeiture of benefits invoked against him for his membership in the Bureau of Constabulary (BC) under 38 U.S.C. § 6104 (a). Record (R.) at 5-13.”
Trilles v. West, 13 Vet. App. 314 (Vet. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “§ 6103 and sought revocation of the forfeiture pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 6104 , the Court followed without comment the "new and material evidence" reopened claim route of 38 U.”
Villaruz v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 561 (Vet. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “380, 385 (1993) (same for claim to reopen revocation of forfeiture under 38 U.S.C. § 6104 (a)). In this case, the Board decided in May 1958 that the appellant had forfeited all rights, claims, and benefits under all laws administered by VA because he had rendered assistance to…”
Taylor v. McDonough, 3 F.4th 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “shall be punished as a court-martial may direct”); 38 U.S.C. § 6104 (a) (providing that a veteran Case: 19-2211 Document: 35 Page: 31 Filed: 06/30/2021 TAYLOR v.”
Crispin B. Untalan v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 467 (Vet. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “§ 3504 (a) (now 38 U.S.C. § 6104 (a)) based on a determination that Mr.”
Lizaso v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 380 (Vet. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “IVERS, Judge: Loreto Lizaso appeals from a November 15, 1991, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board) decision which denied his claim for revocation of the forfeiture of his rights to Department of Veterans Affairs benefits under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 6104 (a) (West…”
Macarubbo v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 388 (Vet. App. 1997). “Maearubbo, appeals a May 16, 1996, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board) that determined that under 38 U.S.C. § 6104 (a) he had forfeited his right to veterans benefits, due to his membership in the Bureau of Constabulary (BC) in the Philippines during World…”
Reyes v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 113 (Vet. App. 1994). “380, 385 (1993) (Court held that claimant’s evidence in resubmitted claim to revoke forfeiture under 38 U.S.C. § 6104 was not new). Appellant’s newly submitted evidence relates to the death of Mr.”
Cole v. West, 13 Vet. App. 268 (Vet. App. 1999). “§ 1318 and certain cases involving individuals whose [VA] benefits have been forfeited for treason or for subversive activities under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 6104 and 6105, issues involved in a survivor’s claim for death benefits will be decided without regard to any prior…”
Trilles v. West, 12 Vet. App. 59 (Vet. App. 1998). “484, 487 (1996) (forfeiture under 38 U.S.C. § 6104 (a)). See generally Laruan v.”
Donovan v. West, 11 Vet. App. 481 (Vet. App. 1998). “484, 487 (1996) (Court does not construe 38 U.S.C. § 6104 (a), which *489 provides for forfeiture of VA benefits upon evidence “satisfactory to the Secretary”, as bestowing unlimited, unreviewable discretion on the Secretary even though no statutory or regulatory factors or…”
Ricky N. Dawson v. Dep't of Agric., 2014 MSPB 67 (MSPB 2014). “See 38 U.S.C. § 6104 and 38 U.S.C. § 6105 . ¶8 I believe that in this particular case the law is clear that the appellant is not entitled to a VERA retirement payment.”
Show all 16 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.