
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 2, 2001]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
  January 2, 2001 and January 28, 2002]
[CITE: 10USC6329]

 
                         TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES
 
                    Subtitle C--Navy and Marine Corps
 
                           PART II--PERSONNEL
 
                    CHAPTER 571--VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT
 
Sec. 6329. Officers not to be retired for misconduct

    No officer of the Navy or the Marine Corps may be retired because of 
misconduct for which trial by court-martial would be appropriate.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 396.)

                                          Historical and Revision Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
            Revised section                      Source (U.S. Code)            
   Source (Statutes at Large)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
6329..................................  34 U.S.C. 385.                       R.
S. 1456.
                                        34 U.S.C. 626-1(a) (1st sentence).   Au
g. 7, 1947, ch. 512, Sec.  314(a)
                                                                              (
1st sentence), 61 Stat. 863; May
                                                                              5
, 1954, ch. 180, Sec.  205, 68
                                                                              S
tat. 68.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------

    The words ``for which trial by court-martial would be appropriate'' 
are substituted for the words ``but he shall be brought to trial by 
court-martial for such misconduct''. The peremptory command in the 
source text is at variance with the theory of the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice and conflicts with the provisions of articles 30, 32, 
and 34. The substituted words are in accord with the interpretation 
placed on R.S. 1456 in Denby v. Berry, 263 U.S. 29, 36 (Nov. 12, 1923).
