FEDERAL · 10 U.S.C. · Chapter SUBCHAPTER XI—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Art. 139. Redress of injuries to property
10 U.S.C. § 939
Title10 — Armed Forces
ChapterSUBCHAPTER XI—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
This text of 10 U.S.C. § 939 (Art. 139. Redress of injuries to property) 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. § 939.
Text
(a)Whenever complaint is made to any commanding officer that willful damage has been done to the property of any person or that his property has been wrongfully taken by members of the armed forces, he may, under such regulations as the Secretary concerned may prescribe, convene a board to investigate the complaint. The board shall consist of from one to three commissioned officers and, for the purpose of that investigation, it has power to summon witnesses and examine them upon oath, to receive depositions or other documentary evidence, and to assess the damages sustained against the responsible parties. The assessment of damages made by the board is subject to the approval of the commanding officer, and in the amount approved by him shall be charged against the pay of the offenders. The
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
United States v. Ellerbrock
70 M.J. 314 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2011)
Fox v. Brown
402 F.2d 837 (Second Circuit, 1968)
Fox v. Brown
286 F. Supp. 855 (S.D. New York, 1968)
Canuto v. United States
673 F. App'x 982 (Federal Circuit, 2016)
United States v. Brown
4 M.J. 654 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1977)
United States v. Henson
58 M.J. 529 (Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, 2003)
Dukes v. Smith
34 M.J. 803 (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review, 1991)
United States v. Henderson
23 M.J. 860 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1987)
United States v. Ali
(Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, 2022)
Rytlewski v. Government of The United States
(S.D. New York, 2020)
United States v. Fenwrick
59 M.J. 737 (Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, 2003)
Source Credit
History
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 78.)
Editorial Notes
In subsection (a), the words "Secretary concerned" are substituted for the words "Secretary of the Department". The word "under" is substituted for the words "subject to". The words "or affirmation" are omitted as covered by the definition of the word "oath" in section 1 of title 1. The words "it has" are substituted for the words "shall have" in the second sentence. The word "is" is substituted for the words "shall be" before the words "subject" and "conclusive". The word "commissioned" is inserted for clarity.
In subsection (b), the word "If" is substituted for the word "Where". The word "considered" is substituted for the word "deemed".
In subsection (b), the word "If" is substituted for the word "Where". The word "considered" is substituted for the word "deemed".
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
10 U.S.C. § 939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/10/939.