Database Search Results

The statute instructs the agency (Secretary concerned) on a specific regulatory task: to establish a board of review for discharge/dismissal cases. The statute also specifies the composition of the board, timelines, and types of evidence to consider, indicating a specific regulatory task.

32 CFR Part 516 lists 10 U.S.C. § 1553 in its authority section, meaning that a regulation about litigation must be directly mandated by 10 U.S.C. § 1553

10 U.S.C. § 1553 clearly instructs the Secretary concerned to establish a board of review to handle discharge reviews. While the statute provides some discretion in implementation, it specifically tasks the agency with a defined regulatory action.

32 CFR Part 581 explicitly cites 10 U.S.C. § 1553 in its authority section, demonstrating a direct mandate for regulations related to discharge review boards.

The statute provides clear instructions to the agency (the Secretary concerned) on establishing and operating the discharge review boards. Although terms like “review” and “change a discharge” are used, the statute identifies a specific regulatory task: reviewing and potentially altering discharges or dismissals of former service members. This falls under the “Specific Authority” category because it assigns a definite duty with some discretion on how to accomplish it.

The statute 10 U.S.C. § 1553 explicitly mandates the Secretary concerned to establish a board of review and outlines its functions regarding discharge or dismissal reviews. The regulation 32 CFR Part 70 provides the specific procedures and standards for these discharge review boards, directly implementing the statutory requirement.

The statute provides a very specific regulatory task. It instructs the Secretary to establish a review board, defines the scope of the board’s review (discharge/dismissal of former members), sets time limits (15 years), and dictates some aspects of the board’s composition (expertise in mental health under certain conditions) and procedures. This level of detail, even using general terms, aligns with a Specific Authority Delegation.

10 U.S. Code § 1553(a) explicitly mandates that “The Secretary concerned shall… establish a board of review…to review the discharge or dismissal.” This direct instruction classifies the statute-regulation relationship as directly mandated. 32 CFR Part 865 establishes the Air Force Discharge Review Board and associated policies in accordance with 10 USC 1553.

While the statute provides fairly detailed instructions on the responsibilities of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, these do not focus on specific regulatory tasks related to acquisition planning. The statute sets forth the Chairman’s duties related to strategic direction, contingency planning, readiness, and force development, but it provides no targeted direction for creating acquisition plans. Because the statute outlines general duties without specific regulatory aims, it falls under General Authority.

10 U.S. Code § 153 addresses the responsibilities of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including strategic planning, advice, and policy formulation. 48 CFR Part 7 addresses acquisition planning. While both pertain to the Department of Defense, and acquisition planning could potentially support the strategic goals outlined by the Chairman, the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the regulation. The regulation is more generally linked to the broader context of defense operations.

While the statute provides authority to the Secretary of Defense, and the regulation relies on Title 10 for authority, there is no specific direction related to acquisition planning. The statute concerns the duties of the Vice Chairman, which would broadly relate to resource management within the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

10 U.S. Code § 154 concerns the appointment, qualifications, duties, and succession of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 48 CFR Part 7 covers acquisition planning within the federal government. While both relate to the Department of Defense in some capacity, the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the regulation, nor vice versa. They are related in that they both concern the Department of Defense, but are otherwise independent.

10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137, cited in the regulation’s authority, grant broad authority to the Department of Defense regarding military organization and acquisition. However, these are broad delegations rather than instructing on a specific regulatory task.

The statute concerns the organization and management of the Joint Staff. The regulation concerns acquisition planning. While the Joint Staff may utilize acquisition planning, the statute doesn’t explicitly mandate or authorize acquisition regulations. They are related in the sense that acquisition planning would presumably occur within the Department of Defense, but there’s no direct link established in the statute.

The statute explicitly directs the Secretary of a military department to correct military records when they consider it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice and outlines the procedures to use in those corrections. The language clearly instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task or gap to fill and provides the bounds to operate within.

The regulation, 32 CFR Part 516, explicitly cites 10 U.S.C. 1552 as an authority for its existence. This indicates a direct mandate from the statute for the regulation.

While the statute details the process for correcting records, it doesn’t specifically instruct the agency on how to regulate specific issues or fill particular regulatory gaps. The Secretaries have significant discretion in establishing the procedures for these corrections, indicating broad authority.

The regulation explicitly cites 10 U.S.C. 1552 as its authority. This indicates a direct mandate for the creation and operation of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records.

The statute provides a general authority to the Secretary to provide for the recovery, care, and disposition of remains. While the statute lists specific categories of individuals for whom the Secretary may provide these services, it does not provide specific instructions on how to regulate cemeteries, leaving that to the Secretary’s discretion. The use of the word “may” also signifies the grant of a broader, permissive authority as opposed to a specific mandate.

10 U.S.C. § 1481 authorizes the Secretary concerned to provide for the recovery, care, and disposition of remains. The regulation, 32 CFR Part 553, implements this authorization by establishing rules for Army cemeteries. The statute does not mandate the creation of these regulations, but permits them.

While the statute grants the Secretary concerned the discretion to pay necessary expenses related to the recovery, care, and disposition of remains, the statute enumerates specific regulatory tasks and gaps. For instance, subsection (a)(8) speaks to “travel and transportation allowances as specified in regulations prescribed under section 464 of title 37 for an escort of one person”. Also, subsection (g)(1) refers to regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense to determine what expenses would not have been incurred but for forensic pathology investigations.

32 CFR Part 553 explicitly cites 10 U.S.C. 1482 in its authority section, indicating a direct mandate to create regulations concerning Army cemeteries, which would encompass expenses related to death.

10 U.S.C. § 149 clearly instructs the agency (Department of Defense through the Office of Strategic Capital) on a specific regulatory task: to make “eligible investments” in “covered technology categories”. It identifies what constitutes an eligible entity and investment, and even specifies funding requirements. Although the phrasing allows for some agency discretion, it provides specific parameters around a particular task.

10 U.S.C. § 149 authorizes the Office of Strategic Capital to make “eligible investments.” While the statute lays out specific duties for the office, it doesn’t mandate the specific acquisition planning regulations found in 48 CFR Part 7. However, 48 CFR Part 7 broadly relates to acquisition planning, which would be necessary for the Office of Strategic Capital to implement its duties, thus the statute authorizes acquisition planning but does not mandate the specific regulations.

While the regulation (48 CFR Part 7) cites 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and chapter 137 legacy provisions as authority, 10 U.S. Code § 151 itself provides no specific instructions for any particular regulatory task related to acquisition planning. Therefore, the general authority stemming from the Title 10 chapters cited grants broad rulemaking authority rather than specific regulatory tasks or gaps identified in the statute itself.

10 U.S. Code § 151 outlines the composition and functions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and their role as military advisors. 48 CFR Part 7 addresses acquisition planning within the federal government. While both relate to the Department of Defense, the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the regulation. The statute establishes the advisory role of the JCS, while the regulation concerns how the Department of Defense plans for acquiring goods and services, which are related concepts, but neither directly mandated nor explicitly authorized by the statute..

The statute grants broad authority to the Secretary of Defense to prescribe the duties and powers of the Director of Small Business Programs concerning small business programs within the Department of Defense. It does not specify particular regulatory tasks or gaps that need to be addressed. This general authority allows the Secretary to determine the appropriate scope and content of regulations related to these programs, making it a general authority delegation.

10 U.S.C. § 144(c)(1) states that the Director of Small Business Programs “shall perform such duties regarding small business programs of the Department of Defense, and shall exercise such powers regarding those programs, as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.” This authorizes, but does not mandate, the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations concerning the duties and powers of the Director of Small Business Programs. The acquisition planning regulations outlined in 48 CFR Part 7 are relevant to small business programs within the Department of Defense, as these programs often involve the acquisition of goods and services. Therefore, regulations regarding acquisition planning are authorized but not mandated by the statute.

The statute clearly instructs the Secretary of Defense on a specific task: to may designate a Principal Advisor on Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction. While the term “may” makes it discretionary rather than mandatory, it’s still a defined regulatory task falling under the definition of a specific authority delegation.

The statute concerns the designation of a Principal Advisor on Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction within the Department of Defense. While 48 CFR Part 7, “Acquisition Planning,” generally relates to the Department of Defense through its inclusion of 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 137, the statute regarding the Principal Advisor does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the acquisition planning regulations. They are related through the broad theme of defense matters, but the link is not a direct mandate or explicit authorization.

The statute delegates authority to administer programs, but it doesn’t specify how that administration should occur, beyond authorizing the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation to administer programs, projects, or other activities administered by the Office of Economic Adjustment. There are no specific regulatory tasks identified, which suggests that the agency has flexibility in deciding how to implement the program administration. This broad authorization aligns with the characteristics of a general authority delegation.

The provided statute, 10 U.S. Code § 146 (renumbered § 198) authorizes the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation to administer programs previously handled by the Office of Economic Adjustment. While the statute does authorize this action, it doesn’t mandate specific regulations. 48 CFR Part 7, which deals with acquisition planning within the Department of Defense, could potentially be used to implement this authorization in specific cases where it involves procurement or contracting, but it is not directly mandated by the statute.

While the statute is not explicitly directing a regulatory action regarding contracting, 10 U.S.C. § 147(b)(6) directs the Chief Diversity Officer to advise in the establishment of a strategic plan for diverse participation by institutions of higher education (including historically black colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions), federally funded research and development centers, and individuals in defense-related research, development, test, and evaluation activities. This provides a specific goal linked to a certain sector that the DOD contracts with.

While 10 U.S.C. § 147 deals with the Department of Defense and the broad subject of the acquisition of diverse talent could conceivably intersect with acquisition planning, the statute doesn’t directly mandate or explicitly authorize the regulations found in 48 CFR Part 7. 48 CFR Part 7 focuses on how the DoD acquires goods and services, whereas 10 U.S.C. § 147 relates to diversity and inclusion within the department’s personnel and strategic planning regarding outreach. The link is tangential.

The statute provides detailed instructions on the establishment and responsibilities of the Joint Energetics Transition Office. It directs the Secretary of Defense to establish the office, designates leadership positions, outlines specific planning, coordination, oversight, and recommendation duties related to energetic materials. This level of specificity indicates a specific authority delegation.

The statute explicitly mandates the Secretary of Defense to establish the Joint Energetics Transition Office and carry out specific activities. This represents a direct mandate relationship because the law requires specific action from the agency.

The regulation cites broad chapters of the U.S. Code, rather than a specific section dictating the agency’s actions, indicating a general authority delegation. The reference to 10 U.S.C. 3016 as “legacy provisions” further suggests a broader grant of authority than a precisely defined, specific mandate.

10 U.S. Code § 140a was renumbered to 421. The regulation 48 CFR Part 7 cites 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and chapter 137 as authority, suggesting the regulation is authorized but not mandated by a specific statute (other than the renumbered statute).

The regulation, 48 CFR Part 7, cites to broad chapters within Title 10 (chapters 4 and 137) rather than specific sections. This suggests a broad grant of rulemaking authority related to defense acquisition, making it a general delegation.

The statute 10 U.S.C. § 140b was renumbered as § 423 and later as § 129. While the provided information doesn’t show the substance of these sections, the regulation, 48 CFR Part 7, cites to Title 10, Chapters 4 and 137. This suggests the statute authorizes the regulation, however, without knowing the details, it’s not directly mandated. The regulation covers acquisition planning, which broadly aligns with the military matters covered in Title 10.

10 U.S. Code § 141 does not explicitly delegate rulemaking authority. Instead it establishes the position of Inspector General. Because the statute refers to Title 5, which broadly outlines the roles and responsibilities of the Inspector General, it’s considered a general delegation of authority for the agency to operate.

10 U.S. Code § 141 creates and defines the responsibilities of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense by referencing Title 5. 48 CFR Part 7 deals with acquisition planning. While both relate to the Department of Defense, the statute neither directly mandates the regulation, nor is it explicitly authorized by it. Instead, the regulation is based on Title 40 and Title 51 of the US code. The relationship is that they both pertain to aspects of the Department of Defense.

10 U.S.C. § 142 gives specific instruction to the CIO on regulatory tasks concerning information technology standards and procurement practices within the DoD. For example, subsection (b)(3)(A) directly instructs the Secretary and Heads of Defense Agencies to follow standards as determined by the CIO.

10 U.S.C. § 142(b)(3)(A) states “The Secretary of a military department or head of a Defense Agency may not develop or procure information technology (as defined in section 11101 of title 40) that does not fully comply with such standards as the Chief Information Officer may establish.” It is implied that equipment acquisition in 48 CFR Part 7 was authorized in the establishment of the CIO, however it is not required and thus not directly mandated.

While 10 U.S.C chapter 4 and chapter 137 are cited as authority, they provide broad authorities related to organization and functions of the DoD. Chapter 4 speaks to general functions and authority of the DOD and Chapter 137 addresses acquisition policy. Neither chapter gives specific instruction to an agency on a particular regulatory task, but instead create broad rulemaking authority without specific regulatory tasks identified.

The statute sets a limit on the number of OSD personnel. While it doesn’t directly mandate or explicitly authorize acquisition planning (the subject of the regulation), it does relate to it insofar as personnel limitations could influence decisions about contracting out certain functions as part of acquisition planning. The regulation covers planning for governmental vs contractor performance, which could be affected by the limitations in the statute.

The statute mandates the creation of an office and a council and outlines their purposes, but it doesn’t specifically direct any agency to create regulations related to acquisition planning for these entities. While it relates to DOD functions, it does not delegate specific regulatory tasks regarding acquisitions, which are handled under broader statutory authority related to defense acquisition.

10 U.S. Code § 139b establishes an office and council within the Department of Defense to support special operations. 48 CFR Part 7, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part on Acquisition Planning, generally governs how agencies plan their acquisitions. Although Section 139b could result in acquisitions, and therefore acquisition planning, the statute doesn’t directly mandate or explicitly authorize these specific regulations. 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016), listed in the CFR’s authority, outline organizational and management structures of the DOD which relates to the statute.

The regulation cites 10 U.S.C. chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 as authority. These are broad grants of authority related to the organization and functions of the Department of Defense and procurement. While these statutes might empower the agency to create regulations related to acquisition, they don’t specifically instruct the agency to create acquisition planning regulations, fitting the description of a general grant of authority.

The repealed statute related to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy. The regulation, 48 CFR Part 7, concerns acquisition planning. While both relate to the Department of Defense and its operations, the connection isn’t a direct mandate or explicit authorization. The statute may have related to the context in which acquisition planning takes place, but does not directly mandate or authorize the regulation.