U.S. Code » Title 38 » Part PART I— GENERAL PROVISIONS › Chapter CHAPTER 7— EMPLOYEES › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— GENERAL EMPLOYEE MATTERS

38 U.S.C. § 717

Limitation on administrative leave

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 38 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)In General.—Except as provided in subsection (b), the Secretary may not place any covered individual on administrative leave, or any other type of paid non-duty status without charge to leave, for more than a total of 14 days during any 365-day period.(b)Waiver.—The Secretary may waive the limitation under subsection (a) and extend the administrative leave or other paid non-duty status without charge to leave of a covered individual placed on such leave or status under subsection (a) if the Secretary submits to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives a detailed explanation of the reasons the individual was placed on administrative leave or other paid non-duty status without charge to leave and the reasons for the extension of such leave or status. Such explanation shall include the job title and grade of the covered individual and the location where the individual is employed.(c)Covered Individual.—In this section, the term “covered individual” means an employee of the Department—(1) who is subject to an investigation for purposes of determining whether such individual should be subject to any disciplinary action under this title or title 5; or(2) against whom any disciplinary action is proposed or initiated under this title or title 5.(Added Pub. L. 114–315, title V, § 503(a)(1), Dec. 16, 2016, 130 Stat. 1568.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

Prior sections 717 and 718 were renumbered sections 1917 and 1918 of this title, respectively.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 114–315, title V, § 503(b), Dec. 16, 2016, 130 Stat. 1568, provided that: “Section 717 of title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection (a)(1), shall apply with respect to any 365-day period beginning on or after the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 16, 2016].”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58 cases, 1933–1996 · leading case: Ridgway v. Ridgway, 454 U.S. 46 (1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ridgway v. Ridgway, 454 U.S. 46 (1981). · cites it 2× “In the provision granting the service member the right to designate the beneficiary, the words "at all times" appear in the earlier Act, 38 U. S. C. § 717 (a), but not in the later one, 38 U.”
Behrens v. Milliken, 461 N.W.2d 276 (S.D. 1990). · cites it 10× “We affirm in part and reverse in part. 1. Federal Law The matter concerning the distribution of the insurance proceeds from the NSLI policy is governed by federal law and South Dakota law which conflicts with the applicable federal law is preempted.”
Herrington v. Boatright, 633 S.W.2d 781 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “Upon the death of the insured the question was: Does a state court have the power to effectively require an unwilling veteran to maintain his former wife as beneficiary on his National Service Life Insurance policies? The court held that a state court does not possess that…”
Smith v. United States, 83 F.2d 631 (8th Cir. 1936). · cites it 2× “It is nevertheless the contention of appellant that, since pensions, compensation, and allowances are mere gratuities, which may be withdrawn at any time in the discretion of Congress, the repeal of such by section 17 of title 1 of the Economy Act ( 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 717 , 718) is…”
United States v. Anna Mae (Houdek) Donall, & Mary Barbara Houdek & Camille Sam Abood, Adm'r of the Est. of Henry J. Houdek, Deceased, 466 F.2d 1246 (6th Cir. 1972). · cites it 2× “at 400 , the Supreme Court set the foundation for this rule by emphasizing that the controlling section of the National Service Life Insurance Act [ 38 U.S.C. § 717 (a) (1970) for purposes of the present case] explicitly establishes the right of the insured to designate and…”
Harris v. Harris, 487 P.2d 952 (Idaho 1971). · cites it 3× “She asserts that the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 717 (a) and 749 2 do not apply in this case because the right of the decedent to change the beneficiary of the policy is not disputed.”
Conlon v. Adamski, 77 F.2d 397 (D.C. Cir. 1935). · cites it 2× “(38 USCA § 551), which makes it a criminal offense under any circumstances “to solicit, contract for, charge, or receive, any fee or compensation,” in excess of 10 per centum of the amount recovered in such a proceeding.”
In re the Dissolution of the Marriage of Baratta, 524 P.2d 1233 (Or. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 2× “The wife in effect concedes this point in her brief where she states: “* * * [T]he law appears to be that the decree cannot deprive the petitioner of his right to change beneficiaries as regards the National Service Life Insurance policy.”
Ruth Iola Hoffman v. United States of Am., & Pearl L. Lechner, 391 F.2d 195 (9th Cir. 1968). “” The other statute is 38 U.S.C. § 717 (a), which provides: “(a) The insured shall have the right to designate the beneficiary or beneficiaries of insurance maturing on or after August 1, 1946, and shall, subject to regulations, at all times have the right to change the…”
Skelton v. United States, 88 F.2d 599 (10th Cir. 1936). · cites it 2× “In the Economy Act of 1933 there is a proviso in section 17, 38 U.S.C.A. § 717 , which refers to “contracts of yearly renewable term insurance which have matured prior to March 20, 1933.”
Matter of Est. of Novotny, 446 F. Supp. 1027 (S.D.N.Y. 1978). · cites it 2× “” A like provision, that “[i]n no event shall there be any payment to the estate of the insured or of the beneficiary of any sums unless it is shown that any sums paid will not escheat,” appears in 38 U.S.C. § 717 (d) dealing with National Service Life Insurance.”
United States v. Foster, 238 F. Supp. 867 (E.D. Mich. 1965). “§ 602 (u) of the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, as amended ( 38 U.S.C. § 717 (d). In this case, however, if payment is made to the insured’s estate without qualification, the widow, as sole legatee under the insured’s will, would receive the entire proceeds of the…”
Show all 58 citing cases →
38 U.S.C. § 717(a): 1 case
United States v. Anna Mae (Houdek) Donall, & Mary Barbara Houdek & Camille Sam Abood, Adm'r of the Est. of Henry J. Houdek, Deceased, 466 F.2d 1246 (6th Cir. 1972). “at 400 , the Supreme Court set the foundation for this rule by emphasizing that the controlling section of the National Service Life Insurance Act [ 38 U.S.C. § 717 (a) (1970) for purposes of the present case] explicitly establishes the right of the insured to designate and…”
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.