(a)Subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Air Force, the Superintendent of the Academy shall issue regulations—
(2)designed to prevent that practice; and
(3)prescribing dismissal, suspension, or other adequate punishment for violations.
(b)If a cadet who is charged with violating a regulation issued under subsection (a), the penalty for which is or may be dismissal from the Academy, requests in writing a trial by a general court-martial, he may not be dismissed for that offense except under sentence of such a court.
(c)A cadet dismissed from the Academy for hazing may not be reappointed as an Air Force cadet, and is ineligible for appointment as a commissioned officer in a regular component of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, until two years after the graduation of his class.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 566.)
Historical and Revision Notes
Source (U.S. Code)
Source (Statutes at Large)
10:1163 (1st par.).
10:1163 (1st 32 words of last par.).
10:1163 (last par., less 1st 32 words).
Mar. 2, 1901, ch. 804 (2d proviso under “Permanent Establishment”); restated Apr. 19, 1910, ch. 174 (38th par. under “Buildings and Grounds”), 36 Stat. 323.
In subsection (a), the word “violations” is substituted for the words “infractions of the same”. The words “to embody a clear” are omitted as surplusage.
In subsection (b), the words “the penalty for which is or may be” are substituted for the words “which would involve”. The words “may not be dismissed for that offense except under sentence of such a court” are substituted for the words “shall be granted”.
In subsection (c), the words “a regular component” are inserted, since the source statute historically applied only to the regular components.
The table below lists the classification updates, since Jan. 3, 2012, for this section. Updates to a broader range of sections may be found at the update page for containing chapter, title, etc.
The most recent Classification Table update that we have noticed was Tuesday, August 13, 2013
An empty table indicates that we see no relevant changes listed in the classification tables. If you suspect that our system may be missing something, please double-check with the Office of the Law Revision Counsel.