PRIA, Government Policy, Made Personal

Summary

The Secretary of the military department must set up boards of inquiry when and where needed to hear evidence and decide whether an officer who has been asked to show cause for staying on active duty should stay. Each board must have at least three qualified officers. The board must give each officer a fair and impartial hearing. If the board finds the officer did not prove they should stay, it must recommend removal. Under the Secretary’s rules, that officer may be put on leave after getting the board’s report and after any time allowed to submit a rebuttal, and the leave can continue until the Secretary finishes the case or ends the leave sooner. If the board finds the officer should stay, the case is closed unless the service chief recommends separation and the Secretary decides the board’s decision is clearly wrong, a miscarriage of justice, or contrary to the service’s interests. In that situation the Secretary may separate the officer after a written explanation and after notifying the officer and letting them present matters for consideration. That separation authority is for unusual cases and may only be delegated to a civilian official appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. An officer retained after a show-cause under subsection (a) cannot be asked again within one year; an officer retained after a show-cause under subsection (b) may be asked again, but not again for the same conduct unless the earlier findings were obtained by fraud or collusion.

Title 10, §1182

Armed Forces, Source: USLM XML via OLRC

(a)The Secretary of the military department concerned shall convene boards of inquiry at such times and places as the Secretary may prescribe to receive evidence and make findings and recommendations as to whether an officer who is required under section 1181 of this title to show cause for retention on active duty should be retained on active duty. Each board of inquiry shall be composed of not less than three officers having the qualifications prescribed by section 1187 of this title.

(b)A board of inquiry shall give a fair and impartial hearing to each officer required under section 1181 of this title to show cause for retention on active duty.

(c)(1)If a board of inquiry determines that the officer has failed to establish that he should be retained on active duty, it shall recommend to the Secretary concerned that the officer not be retained on active duty.

(2)Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, an officer as to whom a board of inquiry makes a recommendation under paragraph (1) that the officer not be retained on active duty may be required to take leave pending the completion of the officer’s case under this chapter. The officer may be required to begin such leave at any time following the officer’s receipt of the report of the board of inquiry, including the board’s recommendation for removal from active duty, and the expiration of any period allowed for submission by the officer of a rebuttal to that report. The leave may be continued until the date on which action by the Secretary concerned on the officer’s case is completed or may be terminated at any earlier time.

(d)(1)(A)If a board of inquiry determines that an officer should be retained, the officer’s case is closed unless the board substantiated a basis for separation and, upon recommendation from the service chief, the Secretary of the military department determines that the board’s retention recommendation is clearly erroneous in light of the evidence considered by the board, a miscarriage of justice, and inconsistent with the best interest of the service. In such cases, the Secretary of the military department may separate the officer after providing a written justification of the decision to separate.

(B)An officer considered for separation under this section must be notified and afforded the opportunity to present matters for the Secretary of the military department to consider when making the separation determination. The Secretary of the military department shall review the case to determine whether the retention recommendation of the board is clearly contrary to the substantial weight of the evidence in the record and whether the officer’s conduct discredits the Service, adversely affects good order and discipline, and adversely affects the officer’s performance of duty.

(C)Exercise of authority to separate an officer under this section shall be reserved for unusual cases where such action is essential to the interests of justice, discipline, and proper administration of the service.

(2)Authority to direct administrative separation after a board of inquiry’s recommendation to retain an officer may only be delegated to a civilian official within a military department appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The least favorable characterization in such cases will be general (under honorable conditions).

(3)An officer who is required to show cause for retention on active duty under subsection (a) of section 1181 of this title and who is determined under paragraph (1) to have established that he should be retained on active duty may not again be required to show cause for retention on active duty under such subsection within the one-year period beginning on the date of that determination.

(4)(A)Subject to subparagraph (B), an officer who is required to show cause for retention on active duty under subsection (b) of section 1181 of this title and who is determined under paragraph (1) to have established that he should be retained on active duty may again be required to show cause for retention at any time.

(B)An officer who has been required to show cause for retention on active duty under subsection (b) of section 1181 of this title and who is thereafter retained on active duty may not again be required to show cause for retention on active duty under such subsection solely because of conduct which was the subject of the previous proceedings, unless the findings or recommendations of the board of inquiry that considered his case are determined to have been obtained by fraud or collusion.

Notes & Related Subsidiaries

Editorial Notes

Amendments

2024—Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 118–159, § 508(1), amended par. (1) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (1) read as follows: “If a board of inquiry determines that the officer has established that he should be retained on active duty, the officer’s case is closed.” Subsec. (d)(2) to (4). Pub. L. 118–159, § 508(2), (3), added par. (2) and redesignated former pars. (2) and (3) as (3) and (4), respectively. 2002—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 107–314 designated existing provisions as par. (1) and added par. (2). 2000—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 106–398 made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 105–261, § 503(b)(1). See 1998 Amendment note below. 1998—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 105–261, § 503(b)(1), as amended by Pub. L. 106–398, substituted “recommend to the Secretary concerned that the officer not be retained on active duty” for “send the record of its proceedings to a board of review convened under section 1183 of this title”.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date

of 2000 Amendment Pub. L. 106–398, § 1 [[div. A], title X, § 1087(d)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–292, provided that the amendment made by section 1 [[div. A], title X, § 1087(d)(2)] is effective Oct. 17, 1998, and as if included in the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, Pub. L. 105–261, as enacted.

Effective Date

Section effective Sept. 15, 1981, but the authority to prescribe

Regulations

under this section effective on Dec. 12, 1980, see section 701 of Pub. L. 96–513, set out as an

Effective Date

of 1980 Amendment note under section 101 of this title.

§1182 Boards of Inquiry

Summary

Title 10, §1182

Notes & Related Subsidiaries

Editorial Notes

Amendments

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date

Effective Date

Regulations

Effective Date

Citations & Metadata