PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Johnson, Julie [D-TX-32] · D–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 5, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10564 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10564 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10564 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10564 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-24 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The bill would require a military board to review the underlying conduct when a service member accepts a presidential pardon or a commutation, meaning a reduction of a sentence. The responsible Secretary could then authorize involuntary removal from military service or withdraw a National Guard member’s federal recognition, consistent with the board’s recommendation. Removal would not be automatic. The bill would also require reports to Congress about the board’s recommendation and the Secretary’s response.
If a member of the Armed Forces accepts a pardon or commutation of sentence from the President, the Secretary concerned may, in accordance with the recommendation of a board convened under subsection (b)— (A) authorize the involuntary administrative separation of the member; or (B) if the member is a member of the National Guard, withdraw the Federal recognition of such member under section 323 of title 32.
The Secretary concerned shall convene a board— (1) not later than 30 days after a member under the jurisdiction of such Secretary accepts a pardon or commutation described in subsection (a)
Such a report shall include the following elements: (1) The findings of fact and recommendation made by such board. (2) If the board recommended the involuntary administrative separation of the member— (A) whether the Secretary authorized such involuntary administrative separation; and (B) if the Secretary did not authorize such involuntary administrative separation, the justification of the Secretary.
Section 1 would name the bill the Enduring Accountability Act. Section 2 would add a new section 1162 to chapter 59 of title 10 of the United States Code.
This Act may be cited as the Enduring Accountability Act.
Chapter 59 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1161 the following new section: 1162. Authority to separate a member who accepts a pardon or commutation of sentence from the President
The responsible Secretary would have discretion to authorize involuntary administrative separation—a process for removing a member from service—or, for a National Guard member, withdraw federal recognition under the cited law. The action must accord with the board’s recommendation. The formal characterization of an involuntary separation would also have to follow the board’s recommendation.
If a member of the Armed Forces accepts a pardon or commutation of sentence from the President, the Secretary concerned may, in accordance with the recommendation of a board convened under subsection (b)— (A) authorize the involuntary administrative separation of the member; or (B) if the member is a member of the National Guard, withdraw the Federal recognition of such member under section 323 of title 32. (2) An involuntary administrative separation under paragraph (1) shall be characterized in accordance with the recommendation of the board.
The responsible Secretary would have to convene a board within 30 days after a member under that Secretary’s jurisdiction accepts a presidential pardon or sentence reduction. The board would review the underlying conduct using applicable fitness and conduct regulations and standard procedures.
The Secretary concerned shall convene a board— (1) not later than 30 days after a member under the jurisdiction of such Secretary accepts a pardon or commutation described in subsection (a); (2) to consider the conduct to which a pardon or commutation described in subsection (a) relates— (A) under applicable regulations regarding fitness and conduct; and (B) pursuant to standard procedures
The board would make factual findings about the conduct and recommend whether to authorize involuntary separation based on that conduct, regardless of the pardon or sentence reduction.
to make— (A) findings of fact regarding the conduct described in paragraph (2); and (B) a recommendation whether to authorize the involuntary administrative separation of the member on the basis of such conduct, regardless of such pardon or commutation.
A military department Secretary would have to notify the Secretary of Defense within 30 days of each of three events: the member’s acceptance of a pardon or sentence reduction, the board’s convening, and the board’s recommendation.
The Secretary of a military department shall notify the Secretary of Defense not later than 30 days after each of the following: (1) The acceptance of a pardon or commutation of sentence described in subsection (a) by a member under the jurisdiction of such Secretary of a military department. (2) The convening of a board under subsection (b). (3) The recommendation of such a board.
Within 30 days after the board’s recommendation, the Secretary of Defense—or the Secretary overseeing the Coast Guard when it operates outside the Navy—would have to send the appropriate congressional committees a written report. It must include the board’s findings and recommendation. If the board recommended separation, the report must state whether the Secretary authorized it and explain any decision not to authorize it.
Not later than 30 days after a board makes a recommendation under subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating when not operating as a service in the Navy, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a written report regarding such recommendation. Such a report shall include the following elements: (1) The findings of fact and recommendation made by such board. (2) If the board recommended the involuntary administrative separation of the member— (A) whether the Secretary authorized such involuntary administrative separation; and (B) if the Secretary did not authorize such involuntary administrative separation, the justification of the Secretary.
Reports concerning Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Space Force members would go to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. Reports concerning Coast Guard members when the Coast Guard operates outside the Navy would go to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.
The term appropriate congressional committees means— (A) in the case of a member of a covered armed force— (i) the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and (ii) the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate; or (B) in the case of a member of the Coast Guard when the Coast Guard is not operating as a service in the Navy— (i) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives; and (ii) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate. (2) The term covered armed force means the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Space Force.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated October 5, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Armed Services on September 24, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-05T19:24:37Z. 2026-09-24: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. 2026-09-24: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-24. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit, special exemption, or carve-out was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 5, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI