FEDERAL · 10 U.S.C. · Chapter SUBCHAPTER IX—POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND REVIEW OF COURTS-MARTIAL

Art. 72. Vacation of suspension

10 U.S.C. § 872
Title10Armed Forces
ChapterSUBCHAPTER IX—POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND REVIEW OF COURTS-MARTIAL

This text of 10 U.S.C. § 872 (Art. 72. Vacation of suspension) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
10 U.S.C. § 872.

Text

(a)Before the vacation of the suspension of a special court-martial sentence which as approved includes a bad-conduct discharge, or of any general court-martial sentence, the officer having special court-martial jurisdiction over the probationer shall hold a hearing on the alleged violation of probation. The special court-martial convening authority may detail a judge advocate, who is certified under section 827(b) of this title (article 27(b)), to conduct the hearing. The probationer shall be represented at the hearing by counsel if the probationer so desires.
(b)The record of the hearing and the recommendation of the officer having special court-martial jurisdiction shall be sent for action to the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the probationer. If the office

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Noyd v. Bond
395 U.S. 683 (Supreme Court, 1969)
231 case citations
United States v. Hunter
65 M.J. 399 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2008)
94 case citations
United States v. Bingham
3 M.J. 119 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1977)
48 case citations
United States v. Dawson
10 M.J. 142 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1981)
42 case citations
United States v. Hamill
8 C.M.A. 464 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1957)
32 case citations
United States v. Brooks
49 M.J. 64 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 1998)
29 case citations
United States v. Williams
21 C.M.A. 292 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1972)
26 case citations
United States v. Rozycki
3 M.J. 127 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1977)
24 case citations
United States v. May
10 C.M.A. 358 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1959)
23 case citations
United States v. Oakley
11 C.M.A. 187 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1960)
16 case citations
United States v. Dupuis
10 M.J. 650 (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review, 1980)
11 case citations
United States v. Cecil
10 C.M.A. 371 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1959)
10 case citations
United States v. Bulla
58 M.J. 715 (U S Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, 2003)
8 case citations
United States v. Thomas
10 M.J. 766 (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review, 1981)
7 case citations
United States v. Batteas
5 M.J. 625 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1978)
7 case citations
United States v. Miley
59 M.J. 300 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2004)
6 case citations
United States v. Smith
46 M.J. 263 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 1997)
6 case citations
United States v. Kiger
13 C.M.A. 522 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1963)
5 case citations
United States v. Lock
15 C.M.A. 574 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1965)
5 case citations
United States v. Hurd
7 M.J. 18 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1979)
5 case citations

Source Credit

History

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 63; Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LIX, §5335, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2936.)

Editorial Notes

In subsection (a), the word "Before" is substituted for the words "Prior to".
In subsection (b), the words "be effective * * * to" are omitted as surplusage.
The second sentence is restated to make it clear that the execution of the rest of the court-martial sentence is not automatic. The word "is" is substituted for the words "shall * * * be" in the last sentence. The word "sent" is substituted for the word "forwarded". The words "Secretary concerned" are substituted for the words "Secretary of the Department".

Editorial Notes

Amendments
2016—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 114–328, §5335(a), (b)(1), inserted "The special court-martial convening authority may detail a judge advocate, who is certified under section 827(b) of this title (article 27(b)), to conduct the hearing." after first sentence and substituted "if the probationer so desires" for "if he so desires" in last sentence.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 114–328, §5335(b)(2), substituted "If the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction" for "If he" and "section 857 of this title (article 57)" for "section 871(c) of this title (article 71(c))".

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date of 2016 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 114–328 effective on Jan. 1, 2019, as designated by the President, with implementing regulations and provisions relating to applicability to various situations, see section 5542 of Pub. L. 114–328 and Ex. Ord. No. 13825, set out as notes under section 801 of this title.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 U.S.C. § 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/10/872.