LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This article provides general, informational content for educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional legal advice from a qualified attorney. The military justice system is complex. If you are facing an Article 15, you must immediately seek counsel from a uniformed military defense attorney (JAG) from the Trial Defense Service (TDS), Defense Service Office (DSO), or Area Defense Counsel (ADC).
Imagine you're a young service member. One morning, your squad leader tells you, “The First Sergeant wants to see you. Now.” Your heart sinks. In the office, your Company Commander is waiting. They slide a form across the desk and inform you that you are suspected of violating an article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). They are considering giving you an “Article 15.” Your mind races: Is this a criminal charge? Will I go to jail? Is my career over before it even began? This moment, and the decisions you make in the next 48 hours, are among the most critical of your military service. An Article 15 is a form of military discipline that allows a commanding officer to punish a service member for “minor” offenses without a full-blown criminal trial. Think of it as the military's version of being sent to the principal's office, but with far more serious consequences. It's a tool designed for speed and efficiency, meant to correct misconduct and maintain good order and discipline within a unit. But make no mistake, while it's called “non-judicial,” its impact on your pay, rank, and career can be devastating. Understanding this system is your first line of defense.
The idea of a commander personally disciplining their troops is as old as warfare itself. Long before formal legal codes, a ship's captain at sea or a general on the battlefield held the power to punish minor infractions on the spot to maintain order. This tradition was most famously embodied in the Royal Navy's concept of “Captain's Mast,” a formal proceeding on the ship's deck where the captain would hear cases and dole out punishment. When the United States formed its own military, it inherited many of these traditions. For over 150 years, discipline was handled through a patchwork of regulations unique to each service. This often led to inconsistent and sometimes unfair outcomes. The turning point came after World War II. Congress recognized the need for a standardized, modern legal system applicable to all branches of the armed forces. In 1951, they enacted the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Within this code, they formalized the ancient practice of commander-led discipline into Article 15, “Commanding officer's non-judicial punishment.” The goal was twofold:
Today's Article 15 is a direct descendant of that 1951 law, refined by decades of practice and legal review by military courts.
The entire framework for NJP rests on one key federal statute: Article 15 of the UCMJ, which is codified in 10_u.s.c._815. The law begins:
“Under such regulations as the President may prescribe, any commanding officer may, in addition to or in lieu of admonition or reprimand, impose one or more of the following disciplinary punishments for minor offenses without the intervention of a court-martial…”
Let's break that down in plain English. The law gives a commanding officer (your CO, not just any NCO) the power to hand out specific punishments for what the military considers “minor offenses.” This is done “without the intervention of a court-martial,” which means you don't get a military judge, a jury of your peers, or the strict rules of evidence found in a real trial. The phrase “under such regulations as the President may prescribe” is also critical. Those regulations are found in Part V of the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM). The MCM is the military justice bible. It details the specific procedures, the maximum punishments for different ranks, and the rights of the accused service member. If you are facing an Article 15, your military defense counsel will live and breathe by the rules laid out in the MCM.
While the UCMJ applies to all services, each branch has its own terminology, traditions, and forms for handling NJP. If you're a Marine at Camp Lejeune, your experience will feel different than an Airman at Nellis Air Force Base, even if the underlying law is the same.
| Branch | Terminology | Common Presiding Officer | Key Procedural Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Army | Article 15 | Company or Battalion Commander (O-3 to O-5) | The process is highly formalized with the DA Form 2627. There are two types: Summarized (very minor) and Formal. |
| U.S. Navy & Coast Guard | Captain's Mast or “Mast” | Commanding Officer of a ship, submarine, or shore station (Typically O-4 to O-6) | Steeped in naval tradition. The hearing is a formal ceremony. Punishment can uniquely include bread and water (on vessels). |
| U.S. Marine Corps | Office Hours | Company or Battalion Commander (O-3 to O-5) | Similar to the Army but with a distinct Marine Corps cultural emphasis on commander's authority and discipline. |
| U.S. Air Force & Space Force | Article 15 | Squadron or Group Commander (O-4 to O-6) | Often viewed as a more administrative and less ceremonial process compared to the other branches, using the AF Form 3070. |
What does this mean for you? While your basic rights are the same everywhere, the culture and specific procedures of your branch matter. A Navy JAG will understand the nuances of a Captain's Mast better than anyone, which is why it's crucial to get legal advice from an attorney in your specific service.
An Article 15 is a structured process, not just a commander yelling at you. Understanding each stage can help demystify the experience and prepare you for what's ahead.
Article 15 is legally reserved for “minor” offenses. But what is minor? The MCM doesn't provide a perfect definition. It's generally understood to be misconduct that, if taken to a court-martial, would not result in a dishonorable discharge or confinement for more than one year.
A commander's decision to treat a serious offense as “minor” can be an abuse of discretion and grounds for an appeal.
This is the single most important moment. You will be formally notified of your commander's intent to impose NJP. You will be shown the evidence against you and read the specific UCMJ article(s) you are accused of violating. At this point, you have two choices:
This decision has huge consequences. By demanding a court-martial, you gain significant rights: a military judge, a defense attorney, rules of evidence, and the requirement for the government to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, you also face much harsher potential punishments if convicted, including a federal conviction and a punitive discharge (bad_conduct_discharge or dishonorable_discharge). The decision to accept or refuse NJP should never be made without first consulting a military defense lawyer.
If you accept the NJP, a hearing will be scheduled. This is your chance to be heard. You have the right to:
The commander will listen to both sides. They then must decide if they believe you are guilty by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This is a much lower standard of proof than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It simply means “more likely than not” (think 50.1%).
If the commander finds you guilty, they will impose punishment. The maximum punishment depends on the rank of the commanding officer and your own rank. Common punishments include:
If you are found guilty and punished, you have the right to appeal. The appeal is made to the next higher level of command (e.g., if your Company Commander punished you, you appeal to the Battalion Commander). Your appeal must be in writing and submitted within a short timeframe (usually 5 days). You can appeal based on two grounds:
The appellate authority can reduce or set aside the punishment, but they can never make it more severe.
If you are notified that you are facing NJP, time is of the essence. Your actions in the first few days will define the outcome. Follow these steps methodically.
When you are first notified, your career flashes before your eyes. Do not panic. Do not argue, become emotional, or be disrespectful. Maintain your military bearing. Acknowledge that you understand. Your immediate goal is to get a copy of the paperwork (the charge sheet and evidence) and leave. The battle is not won or lost in this first meeting.
You will be asked to decide whether you will accept NJP. The first words out of your mouth should be: “I request time to speak with a defense counsel from TDS/ADC/DSO.” This is your right. They must give you a reasonable amount of time (usually 24-72 hours) to do so. Do not let anyone pressure you into making an immediate decision.
This is the most important action you will take. Immediately find the number for your installation's defense counsel office.
These services are free and completely confidential. They will schedule an appointment for you to speak with a JAG officer whose only job is to defend service members.
Your defense counsel will review the evidence against you and help you weigh the pros and cons of accepting NJP.
This is a strategic gamble. Your lawyer will give you their best assessment, but the final decision is yours.
If you accept NJP, you and your spokesperson must prepare.
If you are found guilty, do not become argumentative. Accept the result professionally. You then have a short window to submit a written appeal. Work with your spokesperson or legal counsel to draft the appeal. Clearly state whether you are appealing because the finding was unjust, the punishment was disproportionate, or both, and provide your reasoning.
The NJP process is documented on official forms that become part of your permanent record.
You have a right to a copy of the completed form. Keep it for your records. It is proof of exactly what happened and what the final outcome was.
While NJP is “non-judicial,” military appellate courts have stepped in to define its limits and protect the rights of service members.
The NJP system is under intense scrutiny. The central debate revolves around the immense power it gives to commanding officers.
The Article 15 is a foundational part of military life and discipline, but it is not static. It will continue to evolve as the military adapts to new technologies and changing societal expectations of justice.