Missing movement is a military offense under Article 87 of the UCMJ, committed when a service member, through design or neglect, misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which the member is required in the course of duty to move. The question assumes a case where the command decides not to take the matter to a court-martial, and asks whether the conduct can still be addressed through administrative means. The answer is yes. A decision not to prosecute at a court-martial does not make the misconduct disappear; commanders have a range of nonjudicial and administrative responses available, and missing movement is frequently handled through those alternatives rather than a trial.
What Article 87 covers
To understand the options, it helps to know what the offense requires. Article 87 has four elements: that the accused was required in the course of duty to move with a ship, aircraft, or unit; that the accused knew of the prospective movement; that the accused missed the movement; and that the accused missed it through design, meaning intentionally, or through neglect. The movement must be a genuine movement involving a substantial distance and period of time, not a minor shift such as repositioning a ship within the same harbor or relocating a unit across the same post.
Article 87 is a punitive article, so it can be the basis for a court-martial. But the existence of a punitive article does not require that every instance be tried. Commanders have discretion over how to dispose of misconduct, and that discretion includes choosing a lesser forum.
The court-martial is only one disposition option
When misconduct occurs, a commander chooses among several dispositions: taking no action, administrative or corrective measures, nonjudicial punishment, or referral to a court-martial. The choice depends on the seriousness of the offense, the member’s record, the strength of the evidence, and the interests of good order and discipline. Declining to refer a missing movement charge to a court-martial simply moves the matter down this ladder of options; it does not foreclose discipline.
Nonjudicial punishment under Article 15
The most common alternative to a court-martial is nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ. Article 15 lets a commander address minor misconduct and impose limited penalties, such as reduction in grade, forfeiture of pay, extra duty, and restriction, without a trial and without a criminal conviction. Missing movement, particularly when caused by neglect rather than a deliberate plan to avoid duty, is the kind of offense that commanders often resolve through Article 15. The member usually has the right to refuse the Article 15 and demand trial by court-martial instead, which is a meaningful choice because it trades the lower burden of the Article 15 process for the procedural protections, but also the greater exposure, of a court-martial.
Nonjudicial punishment is not technically a criminal prosecution, but it is a formal disciplinary action with real consequences, and it is often what people mean when they ask about handling an offense administratively rather than at trial.
Adverse administrative actions
Beyond Article 15, a command can impose a variety of administrative measures. These include counseling statements, letters of reprimand, adverse comments on performance evaluations, denial of favorable personnel actions, and bars to reenlistment. Although these actions are not punishment in the criminal sense, they can carry significant career consequences. Documentation of a missing movement incident through these tools can affect promotions, assignments, and retention even when no court-martial or nonjudicial punishment occurs.
Administrative separation as a consequence
A more serious administrative consequence is initiation of administrative separation. Depending on the member’s overall record and the seriousness and pattern of the misconduct, a command may process the member for separation on grounds such as a pattern of misconduct or commission of a serious offense. A separation board, where one is required, decides by a preponderance of the evidence whether grounds exist and what discharge characterization is warranted. This is administrative rather than criminal, but it can end a career and affect benefits. So a missing movement incident not taken to court-martial can still contribute to a separation action.
Double jeopardy and fairness limits
Choosing an administrative or nonjudicial route raises questions about overlap. Nonjudicial punishment is not a criminal trial, so resolving an incident through Article 15 generally does not by itself bar a later court-martial for the same conduct, although service practice and policy strongly disfavor punishing a member twice and a prior Article 15 will ordinarily be credited if a court-martial later results. Purely administrative actions such as reprimands and separation are not punishment for double jeopardy purposes and can coexist with, or follow, disciplinary action. Throughout, the member retains procedural rights appropriate to each forum, including notice, the chance to respond, and in many cases the assistance of counsel.
The bottom line
Missing movement can be addressed administratively when it is not prosecuted at a court-martial. Article 87 makes the conduct a punitive offense, but commanders are not required to try it; they may instead choose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, adverse administrative actions such as counseling, reprimands, and unfavorable evaluations, or even initiation of administrative separation, depending on the seriousness of the conduct and the member’s record. These alternatives carry real consequences for a career even though they are not criminal convictions, and they remain available precisely because the decision not to go to court-martial reflects a choice among dispositions rather than a conclusion that nothing happened. A member facing such action should understand the forum involved, the rights that attach to it, and, when offered an Article 15, the consequences of accepting it versus demanding trial.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Rules for Courts-Martial, the Military Rules of Evidence, and related military administrative processes work as a matter of public legal education. It does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular case, and it is not a substitute for advice from a qualified military defense attorney who can evaluate the specific facts and command, service, and jurisdictional circumstances involved.
Reading this article, or contacting any website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author. Every court-martial, nonjudicial punishment action, administrative separation, and security-clearance matter turns on its own facts, the charged articles, the convening authority, the service branch, and the evidence, and outcomes vary widely from one case to another.
Military law also changes over time. The Military Justice Act of 2016 (effective January 1, 2019) and subsequent National Defense Authorization Acts renumbered and rewrote many punitive articles, revised the Article 32 preliminary hearing, and altered sentencing, clemency, and appellate procedures. Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Manual for Courts-Martial, and decisions of the service Courts of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may have been amended, superseded, or reinterpreted after this article was written, and article numbers or procedures cited here may have changed.
For these reasons, no reader should act or decline to act based on this content without first consulting a licensed attorney experienced in military justice about their own situation. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or current applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken in reliance on it. If you are facing investigation, charges, or an adverse administrative action, time limits may apply, and you should seek qualified counsel promptly.