FEDERAL · 10 U.S.C. · Chapter SUBCHAPTER XI—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Art. 138. Complaints of wrongs
10 U.S.C. § 938
Title10 — Armed Forces
ChapterSUBCHAPTER XI—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
This text of 10 U.S.C. § 938 (Art. 138. Complaints of wrongs) 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. § 938.
Text
Any member of the armed forces who believes himself wronged by his commanding officer, and who, upon due application to that commanding officer, is refused redress, may complain to any superior commissioned officer, who shall forward the complaint to the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the officer against whom it is made. The officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction shall examine into the complaint and take proper measures for redressing the wrong complained of; and he shall, as soon as possible, send to the Secretary concerned a true statement of that complaint, with the proceedings had thereon.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Chappell v. Wallace
462 U.S. 296 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Brown v. Glines
444 U.S. 348 (Supreme Court, 1980)
Thomas C. Smith, Appellant-Petitioner v. Stanley S. Resor, Secretary of the Army, Appellee-Respondent
406 F.2d 141 (Second Circuit, 1969)
The Committee for Gi Rights v. Honorable Howard H. Callaway, Secretary of the Army
518 F.2d 466 (D.C. Circuit, 1975)
United States v. Graf
35 M.J. 450 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1992)
United States v. Lovett
63 M.J. 211 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2006)
Hodge v. Dalton
107 F.3d 705 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Avila
53 M.J. 99 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2000)
Cortright v. Resor
447 F.2d 245 (Second Circuit, 1971)
United States v. Gay
75 M.J. 264 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2016)
Schatten v. United States
419 F.2d 187 (Sixth Circuit, 1969)
United States v. New
55 M.J. 95 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2001)
Robert S. Antonuk v. United States of America
445 F.2d 592 (Sixth Circuit, 1971)
Alan E. Davis v. United States of America, Lt. Col. R. E. Stoffey
667 F.2d 822 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)
Wallace v. Chappell
661 F.2d 729 (Ninth Circuit, 1981)
Lieutenant Mary Ogden v. The United States of America
758 F.2d 1168 (Seventh Circuit, 1985)
United States v. Brooks
66 M.J. 221 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2008)
United States v. Erby
54 M.J. 476 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2001)
David M. Winck, Jr. v. Gordon R. England, Julian E. Sallas, Richard G. Hoffman, John Ashcroft, Mac Cauley
327 F.3d 1296 (Eleventh Circuit, 2003)
Franklin L. Miller v. Thomas R. Newbauer Jerry S. Klos William A. McKinnon Kenneth J. Sharp and Walter Herbert
862 F.2d 771 (Ninth Circuit, 1988)
Source Credit
History
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 78.)
Editorial Notes
The words "commanding officer" are substituted for the word "commander". The word "who" is inserted after the word "and". The word "commissioned" is inserted after the word "superior" for clarity. The words "The officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction" are substituted for the words "That officer" for clarity. The word "send" is substituted for the word "transmit". The word "Secretary" is substituted for the word "Department" for accuracy, since the "Department", as an entity, could not act upon the complaint.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
10 U.S.C. § 938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/10/938.