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: Voodoorr Daimi
Country: Djibouti
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Video
Published (Last): 19 June 2006
Pages: 491
PDF File Size: 10.18 Mb
ePub File Size: 3.46 Mb
ISBN: 362-7-77144-389-3
Downloads: 21731
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Yozshujora

EUR-Lex Rochtain ar dhlí an Aontais Eorpaigh

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. 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.

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. Therefore, on the basis of the assumptions involved in a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 b 6that the plaintiffs are being held to answer by the Army for their prior civilian conduct under the procedure of AR604-0 to the possible consequence of discharges less than honorable, I conclude that there is a 604-0 violation of their rights rendering unnecessary the exhaustion of administrative remedies.

But the facts on which the fear is based do not appear in the record by which I am bound to decide.

10 Watt Attenuators, SMA, Hz GHz

In support of this part of the motion to dismiss, an affidavit has been submitted by counsel, on information and belief, concerning the defendant’s lack of authority. The affidavit submitted, however, was in such form as to be of little or no help in such an analysis.

Rather than deny the motion for a preliminary ae, 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.

In any event, this court has the power, in the appropriate circumstances, to issue a mandatory injunction, Trautwein v.

AR Military Personnel Security Program :: Military Publications – Army Regulations – USAHEC

United States District Court S. Supplemental Opinion Plaintiff inductees in the United States Army have previously moved for a preliminary injunction restraining the defendant from taking proceedings against them under regulation ARpending the outcome of their suit for a declaratory judgment concerning their discharge rights. The defendant is being sued in his official capacity as Commander of the First Army, with headquarters in this district. Plaintiff inductees in the United States Army have previously moved for a preliminary injunction restraining the defendant from taking proceedings against them 604-0 regulation ARpending the outcome of their suit for a declaratory judgment concerning their discharge rights.


By the same token, from the facts before me, I cannot reach the conclusion of a likelihood of ultimate 6041-0 in the action, a conclusion prerequisite to the granting of the injunction. The motion for a preliminary injunction stands in an entirely different posture from the motion to dismiss under Rule 12 b 6.

Specifically, plaintiffs were required to make a showing that the Army would, if no injunction were granted, terminate plaintiffs’ service with less than honorable discharges on the basis merely of their lawful civilian conduct. I do not doubt that plaintiffs genuinely fear the imminence of such injury.

It is true that under AR the field board hearings scheduled [1] are merely first steps in an administrative process which ends with recommendations of the Department of the Army Review Board in Washington, and the plaintiffs have failed to make any attempt to exhaust this administrative process. General Railway Signal Co.

There was a problem providing the content you requested

The essential averments in the affidavit are not only without personal knowledge but they are largely conclusory in nature. 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 wr Army, actual or constructive, of his civilian background.

But the plaintiffs have in any event failed to make the necessary showing of irreparable injury. Accordingly, in the absence of a proper showing of irreparable injury by the plaintiffs, the motion for a preliminary injunction will be denied.

The cross-motion to dismiss will be denied. No testimony was aar, no affidavits were submitted and no proof of any fact was undertaken. United States, U. There can be no doubt of the validity of that argument. Consequently, for the purposes of the motion qr dismiss under Rule 12 b 6the following facts are deemed admitted: Inasmuch as the charges against the plaintiffs have not yet been decided, or even heard, a showing of irreparable injury can obviously not be predicated upon them, for the charges may conceivably be held groundless.

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 It would seem basic, therefore, that a soldier has a right to an honorable discharge if his military record merits it and that he cannot be held to answer, in the consideration of his discharge, for matters extraneous to that record.


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.

Accordingly, counsel may apply immediately for a further hearing. With this position, on the basis of the assumptions made, I am in agreement. And it is the claim of the plaintiffs that they have a statutory right to be considered for discharge strictly on xr 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 purpose to be served by such proof would be to determine the effective time of inferences which could be drawn from the claim of privilege in refusing to complete the form leaving aside entirely 6041-0 issue of the propriety of drawing any inferences at all. The defendant has also moved to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, in that the conduct of a field board of the Army [5] insofar as the plaintiffs are concerned is not subject to the control of the defendant in this suit.

Finally, it is argued that the failure to join the Secretary of the Army, at whose instance final action would be taken under ARis a failure to join an indispensable party, an incurable defect because the Secretary’s residence is in the District of Columbia.

Lieutenant General Thomas W. Thus, considering the motion as a “speaking motion” under Rule 12 b 12 Moore’s Federal Practice,2d ed. 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.

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. Raby, New York City, of counsel, for defendant.