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. If you are a service member facing action under the UCMJ, you have the right to consult with a military defense counsel. Exercise that right immediately.
Imagine you're in high school. You skip a class, and instead of being arrested and sent to court, you're called into the principal's office. The principal listens to what happened, maybe hears from a teacher, and decides on a punishment—detention for a week. It’s serious, it goes on your school record, and it affects your standing, but it’s not a criminal conviction. You're not going to jail. An Article 15 is, in many ways, the military's version of the principal's office. It's a formal disciplinary tool that allows a commander to punish a service member for “minor” offenses without the need for a full-blown criminal trial, known as a court-martial. It's a system designed for swift, efficient justice to maintain good order and discipline within a unit. While it's called an “Article 15” in the Army and Air Force, the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard have their own names for the same process, like “Captain's Mast” or “Office Hours.” Though it's considered “non-judicial,” the consequences can be severe, impacting your pay, your rank, and your entire military career. Understanding this process is the first, most critical step in protecting your rights and your future.
The concept of a commander personally handling discipline is as old as military organizations themselves. From Roman centurions to naval captains in the age of sail, leaders have always needed a way to correct misconduct without the cumbersome process of a formal trial. The goal has always been the same: maintain discipline, correct minor infractions, and get the unit back to its mission. Prior to 1951, the American military services had separate and often inconsistent disciplinary systems. The Army's “Articles of War” and the Navy's “Articles for the Government of the Navy” had their own versions of commander-imposed punishment. However, after World War II, a widespread call for reform led to the creation of a single, comprehensive set of laws for all branches of the armed forces. This movement culminated in the uniform_code_of_military_justice (UCMJ), enacted by Congress in 1950 and effective in 1951. For the first time, one law governed all service members. Article 15 of this code formalized and standardized the process of Non-Judicial Punishment. It struck a balance: it preserved the commander's essential authority to discipline their troops efficiently, while also codifying a service member's rights within that process, such as the right to be informed of the accusation, review the evidence, and present a defense. Article 15 was created not just to punish, but to be a tool for teaching and rehabilitation, a way to steer a service member back onto the right path without the career-ending stigma of a federal conviction.
The authority for Non-Judicial Punishment comes directly from federal law, specifically Section 815 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which is known as Article 15 of the UCMJ. The statute begins:
(a) 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 this down in plain language:
The rest of the statute details the maximum punishments allowed, which vary based on the rank of the commander imposing them and whether the accused is an officer or enlisted member. This ensures that a junior officer commanding a small platoon cannot impose the same level of punishment as a general officer commanding an entire base.
While Article 15 of the UCMJ is the single law that governs all branches, the names, procedures, and even the culture surrounding NJP can differ significantly. Understanding these differences is key, especially for those serving in joint environments.
| NJP Terminology and Process by Service Branch | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Feature | U.S. Army & U.S. Air Force | U.S. Navy & U.S. Coast Guard | U.S. Marine Corps |
| Common Name | Article 15 | Captain's Mast or “Mast” | Office Hours or NJP |
| Presiding Officer | The Commander (e.g., Company, Battalion, or Brigade Commander). | The Commanding Officer (CO) or Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of a command. | The Commander (e.g., Company, Battalion, or Regimental Commander). |
| Cultural Feel | Often a very formal, quiet, and procedural office-based hearing. | Steeped in naval tradition, often held on the ship's bridge or in a formal setting with the crew's presence possible. | Known for being particularly formal and intense, reflecting the Marine Corps' emphasis on discipline. |
| Primary Form | DA Form 2627 (Army) or AF Form 3070 (Air Force). | NAVPERS 1626/7 (Report and Disposition of Offense(s)). | NAVMC 10132 (Unit Punishment Book). |
| What this means for you | The process is heavily reliant on the paperwork. Your written statement and the forms themselves are the core of your case. | The formality and tradition can be intimidating. Your military bearing and verbal presentation can be just as important as the facts. | The commander's direct assessment of your character and demeanor during the hearing plays a massive role. |
An Article 15 proceeding can feel like a whirlwind. By understanding its distinct parts, you can better navigate the process and prepare an effective response.
Everything starts with an allegation that a service member has violated an article of the uniform_code_of_military_justice. For NJP, this must be a “minor” offense. While there's no exact definition of “minor,” it generally includes offenses that would be considered misdemeanors in the civilian world.
After an initial inquiry or investigation, a commander must decide how to proceed. They have several options: 1. Take no action. They may believe the evidence is insufficient or the incident is too minor to warrant formal action. 2. Use administrative corrective measures. This could be informal counseling, a letter of reprimand, or an unfavorable information file. 3. Initiate Non-Judicial Punishment (Article 15). They believe the offense is minor but serious enough to warrant formal punishment. 4. Recommend a court-martial. They believe the offense is too serious for NJP. This decision is a cornerstone of a commander's authority.
This is the most pivotal moment in the entire process. A service member who is offered an Article 15 generally has two choices: 1. Accept the Article 15. This means you consent to have your commander act as the judge and jury. You are NOT admitting guilt. You are only agreeing to the forum—that the commander will hear the evidence, make a decision on guilt, and, if necessary, impose a punishment. 2. Refuse the Article 15 and demand trial by court-martial. This is your constitutional right. By refusing NJP, you are saying you want your case to be heard in a formal military court with a military judge, prosecutors (trial counsel), and detailed rules of evidence. This choice is a high-stakes gamble. A court-martial offers more protections but carries the risk of a federal conviction and much harsher punishments. This decision should never be made without consulting a defense attorney.
If you accept the Article 15, a hearing will be scheduled. This is not a trial. The rules of evidence are relaxed. The commander will review the evidence against you (witness statements, reports, etc.) and then give you a chance to present your side of the story. You can:
If the commander finds that you committed the offense, they will determine a punishment. The maximum punishment depends on the commander's rank.
| Maximum NJP Punishments (Enlisted Members) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Punishment Type | Company Grade (O-3 & below) | Field Grade (O-4 to O-6) |
| ————————— | —————————————————————– | ————————————————————– |
| Restriction | 14 days | 60 days |
| Extra Duties | 14 days | 45 days |
| Forfeiture of Pay | 7 days' pay | One-half of one month's pay per month for two months |
| Reduction in Rank | Reduction of one grade (E-4 and below) | Reduction of one or more grades (E-5 and above may be reduced to E-4) |
| Correctional Custody | 7 days (E-3 and below) | 30 days (E-3 and below) |
*Note: Punishments for officers are different and do not include reduction in rank or extra duties.*
If you are found guilty and punished, you have the right to appeal the decision to the next higher level of command. The appeal must be submitted in writing, typically within five days. An appeal can be based on two grounds: 1. The punishment was “unjust.” You argue that the finding of guilt was incorrect because the evidence didn't support it. 2. The punishment was “disproportionate.” You argue that even if you are guilty, the punishment was too severe for the offense. The appellate authority can deny the appeal, lessen the punishment, or set aside the entire finding of guilt, but they cannot increase the punishment.
Facing an Article 15 can be terrifying. This step-by-step guide is designed to empower you with a clear plan of action.
You will likely be called into your First Sergeant's or supervisor's office and formally notified that the commander is considering imposing an Article 15. You will be presented with a form (like a DA Form 2627) that lists the alleged offenses and the evidence against you.
The military provides free, confidential legal representation from qualified attorneys (JAGs) who work for the defense, not for the command. Contact your local TDS, ADC, or Defense Service Office immediately to schedule an appointment.
This is the choice your defense counsel will help you make. There is no one-size-fits-all answer.
This decision weighs the near-certainty of some punishment at NJP against the high-risk, high-reward gamble of a court-martial, where you could be fully acquitted or face a life-altering conviction.
If you accept the Article 15 proceeding, you and your counsel will prepare your “case.” This involves:
On the day of the hearing, present yourself professionally.
If you are found guilty, you will receive your punishment. The clock then starts on your right to appeal.
Because NJP is “non-judicial,” it isn't shaped by landmark Supreme Court cases in the same way as criminal law. Instead, it's governed by key legal principles embedded within the UCMJ and military regulations that act as guardrails on a commander's authority.
Unlike a court-martial, where the government must prove guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the standard of proof in an Article 15 is lower. The commander must be convinced that it is “more likely than not” that you committed the offense. This is often described as a “preponderance of the evidence.”
The Supreme Court case Middendorf v. Henry (1976) established that service members do not have a right to have a lawyer *present* with them during a Summary Court-Martial (a low-level criminal court), and this principle has been extended to Article 15 hearings. You cannot bring your lawyer into the room to argue for you.
A common fear is that a commander can issue any punishment they see fit. This is false. Article 15 and its implementing regulations create a strict ceiling on punishments. These limits, outlined in the table in Part 2, are non-negotiable and are based on the rank of the imposing commander and the accused.
The single biggest controversy surrounding Article 15 today is the role of commander discretion, particularly for serious offenses like sexual assault. For decades, advocates have argued that allowing commanders—who are not lawyers—to decide whether to send a sexual assault case to a court-martial or handle it at NJP creates a conflict of interest and often leads to inadequate justice for victims. Recent versions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) have implemented sweeping reforms. These changes have created special prosecutors outside the chain of command and have stripped commanders of their authority to handle dozens of “covered offenses,” including rape, sexual assault, murder, and kidnapping. These cases must now be handled by independent legal professionals. This represents the most significant shift in the military justice system since the UCMJ was created and directly curtails the scope of Article 15.
The future of NJP will likely be shaped by technology and evolving societal views on justice.