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. Strickland, Marilyn [D-WA-10] · D–WA
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.
Source last updated: Oct 14, 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.10710 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.10710 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.10710 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.10710 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 · 2026-10-01 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.
This bill would limit when the Secretary of Defense could remove military officers from promotion recommendations after a selection board chooses them. It would require written reasons, advance notice, and an opportunity for officers to respond. Officers could seek expedited review by a military records correction board, and a timely request would pause removal. Certain board findings would require reconsideration of the promotion recommendation, without guaranteeing promotion.
The Secretary of Defense may remove an officer selected for promotion by a promotion selection board under subsection (d)(2) only upon a written determination that—
(A) provide the officer written notice of the proposed action and the factual basis supporting such action; (B) provide the officer an opportunity to submit written matters for consideration within a reasonable period; and (C) consider any matters submitted by the officer before issuing a final determination.
If, not later than 15 days after receiving notice of a final determination under subsection (g), the officer subject to the determination petitions a board for correction of military records under section 1552(k) of this title for review of the determination, the Secretary of Defense shall stay the removal of the officer from the promotion recommendation until the board completes its review.
An officer removed from a promotion recommendation under section 618 of this title may petition the applicable board established under subsection (a)(1) for expedited review.
the Secretary shall vacate the prior determination, reconsider the officer's promotion recommendation in accordance with such section, and issue a new written determination.
The proposed short title is the Military Officer Promotion Integrity Act of 2026. Its findings describe merit-based, politically neutral promotion decisions and oversight as congressional priorities; these statements do not establish the bill's actual effects.
This Act may be cited as the Military Officer Promotion Integrity Act of 2026.
Congress makes the following findings:
Promotion selection boards convened under chapter 36 of title 10, United States Code, play a critical role in preserving the professionalism, merit-based character, and apolitical nature of the Armed Forces.
Transparency, objectivity, and meaningful oversight promote servicemember and public confidence in the military promotion system, protect the rights of servicemembers, and strengthen the readiness and effectiveness of the Armed Forces.
The Secretary of Defense could remove a selected officer from a promotion recommendation only through a written determination based on misconduct, newly discovered significant negative information unavailable to the selection board that materially affects promotion qualifications, loss of statutory qualifications, or national security or military necessity.
(1) The Secretary of Defense may remove an officer selected for promotion by a promotion selection board under subsection (d)(2) only upon a written determination that— (A) the officer engaged in misconduct; (B) newly discovered, material adverse information unavailable to the promotion selection board materially affects the qualifications of the officer for promotion; (C) the officer no longer satisfies statutory qualifications for promotion; or (D) removal is required for reasons of national security or military necessity.
The written decision would have to identify the specific permitted reason for removal, explain the supporting facts and evidence, and meet the bill's substantial-evidence requirement. The bill would use the definition of “adverse information,” meaning the negative information relevant to these decisions, from Department of Defense Instruction 1320.4 or successor regulations.
(2) The written determination shall identify the specific ground for removal under paragraph (1), set forth the factual findings and evidence supporting the determination, and be supported by substantial evidence.
(5) In this subsection, the term adverse information has the meaning given the term in Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1320.4, or successor regulations.
A removal decision could not be based on an officer's participation in, implementation of, or statements connected with a lawful Defense Department policy, directive, program, ceremony, or official activity authorized when the conduct occurred.
(3) A written determination under paragraph (1) may not be based upon an officer's participation in, implementation of, or statements made in connection with a lawful Department of Defense policy, directive, program, ceremony, or official activity that was authorized at the time such conduct occurred.
Within 15 days after a final removal determination, the Secretary would have to notify both the affected officer and the congressional defense committees in writing.
(4) Not later than 15 days after making a final determination under this subsection, the Secretary shall provide— (A) written notice to the affected officer; and (B) written notification to the congressional defense committees.
The bill would define misconduct to include a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, substantiated negative findings by an Inspector General or another competent authority, conduct resulting in removal from command or the start of administrative separation proceedings, or conduct materially showing inability to perform the duties of the selected rank. The definition would not require a criminal conviction in every case.
(6) For purposes of this subsection, the term 'misconduct' means— (A) a violation of chapter 47 of this title (the Uniform Code of Military Justice); (B) substantiated adverse findings by an Inspector General, board of inquiry, or other competent authority; (C) conduct resulting in removal from command or the initiation of administrative separation proceedings; or (D) conduct that materially demonstrates the officer's inability to perform the duties of the grade for which selected.
Before a final removal decision, the Secretary would have to give the officer written notice of the proposed action and its factual basis, allow a reasonable period for a written response, and consider that response. This provision specifies a written response opportunity without setting a fixed response deadline.
(1) Before making a final determination to remove an officer from a promotion recommendation under this section, the Secretary of Defense shall— (A) provide the officer written notice of the proposed action and the factual basis supporting such action; (B) provide the officer an opportunity to submit written matters for consideration within a reasonable period; and (C) consider any matters submitted by the officer before issuing a final determination.
If an officer requested review by a military records correction board within 15 days after receiving notice of the final decision, the Secretary would have to pause removal from the promotion recommendation until the board completed its review.
(2) If, not later than 15 days after receiving notice of a final determination under subsection (g), the officer subject to the determination petitions a board for correction of military records under section 1552(k) of this title for review of the determination, the Secretary of Defense shall stay the removal of the officer from the promotion recommendation until the board completes its review.
An officer removed from a promotion recommendation under section 618 could request expedited review by the applicable military records correction board. The board would have to finish within 180 days after receiving the request.
(k) (1) An officer removed from a promotion recommendation under section 618 of this title may petition the applicable board established under subsection (a)(1) for expedited review. The board shall complete review not later than 180 days after receipt of such petition.
The Secretary would have to cancel the earlier decision, reconsider the promotion recommendation, and issue a new written decision if the board either removed the negative information supporting the decision from the officer's promotion record or found that the removal violated section 618 or its implementing regulations. The specified remedy is reconsideration, rather than an automatic promotion.
(2) If the board removes from the officer’s promotion record the adverse information upon which the Secretary’s removal decision was based or determines that the Secretary's removal of the officer violated section 618 of this title, or regulations prescribed pursuant to such section, the Secretary shall vacate the prior determination, reconsider the officer's promotion recommendation in accordance with such section, and issue a new written determination.
The responsible Secretary would have to establish procedures implementing section 6 within 180 days after enactment.
(b) Regulations The Secretary concerned shall prescribe procedures to implement this section not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated October 14, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Armed Services on October 1, 2026. It does not establish subsequent action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-14T21:35:00Z. 2026-10-01: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. 2026-10-01: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-10-01. 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 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 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 beyond the bill's generally applicable protections for its covered officers was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 14, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI