AR 604-10 PDF

is 10GTEK TRANSCEIVERS CO., LTD’ s On-Line Mall site to sell HPC Cable: SFP Cables, SFP+ Cables, QSFP Cables, MiniSAS Cables, XFP. Security information Derogatory information concerning loyalty and subversion ( AR –10 chapter 2) will be processed as set forth in that regulation. 4–3. 19(b) (July 29, ) provided that “AR applies” should be stamped on each derogatory discharge under its terms, indicating that the discharged was.

Author: Mulkree Kazicage
Country: Qatar
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Marketing
Published (Last): 2 July 2004
Pages: 291
PDF File Size: 16.46 Mb
ePub File Size: 17.6 Mb
ISBN: 622-5-28333-539-4
Downloads: 53969
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Shagar

The exercise of military jurisdiction to inflict painful and injurious consequences, if not “punishment”, upon a service man for prior civilian conduct would be a shocking perversion of the elementary canons of due process. With this position, on the basis of the assumptions made, I am in agreement.

Supplemental Opinion January 4, Rather than deny the motion for a preliminary injunction, therefore, I shall hold it in abeyance for a short time to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to make the necessary showing, if they can.

The termination of plaintiffs’ Army service with less than honorable discharges would so brand and stigmatize them, with consequences too obvious to require specification, as to make irreparable injury undeniable.

EUR-Lex – CA – GA – EUR-Lex

If that view has any substance, then the plaintiffs have not had their day in court on their motion, an eventuality distasteful to the pursuit of justice. Raby, New York City, of counsel, for defendant.

As already 604-110, it is not at this time clear that he lacks the necessary power. A procedure which postulates pre-induction civilian conduct as the basis for a less than honorable discharge could not be countenanced and it must be concluded that such a procedure is legislatively unauthorized.

Search results for ‘AR 604 10’

It is familiar and elementary law that “the granting of a preliminary injunction is an exercise of a very far-reaching power, never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it. In a memorandum dated November 18,the court held the motion in abeyance pending the making of a showing by plaintiffs which they had not attempted of the imminence of irreparable injury.

The 64-10 unavailability of judicial review, however, is not a justification for the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. But the plaintiffs have in any event failed to make the necessary showing of irreparable injury.

  DRC 8052 PDF

The issue, however, to which it is addressed is not the determination of the security status of an individual soldier, nor even his retention in the army, but the infliction of harm by means of a discharge without honor in the case of one who not only does not merit such a discharge on the basis of his actual service, but who was inducted with knowledge on the part of the Army, actual or constructive, of his civilian background.

The defendant has cross-moved for dismissal under Fed.

Thus, considering the motion as a “speaking motion” under Rule 12 b 12 Moore’s Federal Practice,2d ed. No testimony was offered, no affidavits were submitted and no proof of any 60-410 was af.

Viewing the issue in this light, the defendant for the first time argues, with the citation of substantial authority, that the court is nevertheless without jurisdiction to review a discharge after its issuance or to enjoin the issuance of a discharge.

It is alleged that such discharges are threatened solely on the basis of facts and occurrences existing prior to plaintiffs’ inductions, despite their satisfactory and honorable service.

It is inconceivable to me that the Army would so terminate a soldier’s service on the sole basis of conduct occurring prior to induction. Plaintiffs, inductees now serving in the Army at Fort Dix, New Jersey, have sued for a declaratory judgment concerning their discharge rights, and have moved for a preliminary injunction restraining the defendant from taking proceedings against them under regulation AR July 29, The kindest view I can take of the matter is that plaintiffs’ counsel have labored under a misapprehension about admissions or concessions by the defendant.

10 Watt Attenuators

And it is the claim of the plaintiffs 640-10 they have a statutory right to be considered for discharge strictly on the basis of the merits of their military service, without being put in jeopardy of a less than honorable discharge on the basis of anything extraneous to that service. The motion for a preliminary injunction stands in an entirely different posture from the motion to dismiss under Rule 12 b 6. General Railway Signal Co. The showing was, however, predicated upon the claim, which is conceded, that plaintiffs, having failed to complete a “Loyalty Certificate for Personnel of the Armed Forces”, form DD 98, [1] they cannot qualify for more than a general discharge under honorable conditions, under paragraph 17b 1 b of AR And the plaintiffs have made no showing whatever, and have attempted to make none, that such a discharge qualifies as the kind, described in the previous memorandum, that would brand and stigmatize a recipient so as to cause him irreparable injury.


It is certainly not contended that the Army could try a soldier for a crime alleged to have been a prior to his entry upon service. The essential averments in the affidavit are not only without personal knowledge but they are largely conclusory in nature.

If the claim of privilege was previous to or simultaneous 064-10 induction, then any logical inferences drawn must certainly be relevant only to civilian conduct. An honorable discharge encompasses a property right, as well as civil rights and personal 60410. All that does appear is the fact that field board hearings have been scheduled to initiate the procedure whereby the feared result may occur.

The complaint is directed at the conduct by the Army of certain proceedings under ARleading possibly to the termination of plaintiffs’ Army service with discharges other than honorable.

Specifically, plaintiffs were required to make a showing that the Army would, if no injunction sr granted, terminate plaintiffs’ service with less than honorable discharges on the basis merely of their lawful civilian conduct. There are general statements in a memorandum about charges made against the plaintiffs, and there is also a conclusory wr that the plaintiffs are threatened with a discharge, no matter how any field board hearing might go, no better than a “general discharge under honorable circumstances”, on the ground that they refused to complete DD 98 forms “Loyalty Certificates for Personnel in the Armed Forces”.

United States ex rel.