A service member who arrives at the flight line after the aircraft has departed, or who misses a unit’s scheduled deployment movement because the shuttle, bus, or ride never showed, often assumes the missed connection itself is the whole story. The military justice system asks a more precise question. Missing a required movement is charged under Article 87 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and whether a transportation failure is a defense depends on how that failure interacts with the specific element the government must prove: that the member missed the movement through design or neglect.
What Article 87 actually requires
Article 87, UCMJ, codified at 10 U.S.C. section 887, punishes any person subject to the Code who, through neglect or design, misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which the person is required in the course of duty to move. To convict, the prosecution must prove 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; and that the accused missed the movement through design or neglect.
The third element is where a transportation problem lives or dies as a defense. “Design” means the member intentionally missed the movement, a specific intent to be absent. “Neglect” means the member failed to take the measures a reasonable person would have taken under the circumstances to be present. A transportation failure that the member could not reasonably have anticipated or overcome tends to negate both. A transportation failure that the member created, ignored, or should have planned around tends to establish neglect rather than excuse it.
When a transportation failure helps the accused
The strongest version of this defense is one where the breakdown was genuinely outside the member’s control and the member acted reasonably both before and after it occurred. Consider a member who confirmed the official shuttle schedule, arrived at the designated pickup point on time, and waited, only to have the government-arranged transport fail to appear or break down en route through no fault of the member. Here the member did exactly what a reasonable person was required to do. The failure to make the movement was not the product of neglect, because neglect is measured by the reasonableness of the member’s own conduct, not by whether the outcome was bad.
The defense is essentially that the member took the measures that were reasonable under the circumstances. If those measures were reasonable, the neglect element is not satisfied, and there can be no conviction under that theory. Because the element is part of the government’s burden, the accused does not have to prove the transportation failure beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused needs only to raise a reasonable doubt about whether the missed movement resulted from a failure of reasonable diligence.
When a transportation failure does not help
The same facts can cut the other way. A missed shuttle rarely excuses a missed movement standing alone, because reasonableness includes anticipation and backup. A member who knew the report time, knew the shuttle was unreliable or optional, and made no alternative arrangement may still be neglectful. A member who overslept and therefore missed the only ride cannot blame the transportation, because the proximate failure was the member’s own. And a member who deliberately let the shuttle leave in order to avoid the movement has supplied evidence of design, the more serious theory.
Reasonableness also extends past the moment of the breakdown. A member who realizes the ride has failed but does nothing, when reporting the problem to the chain of command, calling a duty number, or arranging other transport was available, may convert an excusable mishap into culpable neglect. Courts examining these cases look at the entire sequence of the member’s decisions, not just the final missed connection.
Design, neglect, and the role of intoxication
The distinction between the two theories matters for both guilt and punishment, and it interacts with related conduct such as intoxication. Missing movement by design carries a substantially higher maximum punishment than missing movement by neglect. Because design is a specific intent, evidence that a member was genuinely unable to form the intent to miss the movement can be relevant to that theory. Voluntary intoxication, however, is not a defense to the neglect theory, because neglect is a general intent measured against the conduct of a reasonable person, and a member cannot create the very incapacity that caused the missed movement and then use it as an excuse. A member who got drunk and missed the ride has, if anything, supplied evidence of neglect.
How to present it and what to gather
A transportation-failure defense is built on documentation and timeline. Helpful evidence includes the published transportation schedule or order, proof of where and when the member reported, witness statements confirming the member was present and waiting, communications showing the member tried to report or solve the problem, and any record that the transport was government-arranged and failed. The defense should connect each piece to the reasonableness inquiry, showing that the member did what duty required and that the failure originated elsewhere.
Bottom line
A transportation failure such as a missed shuttle can be a valid defense to a charge under Article 87, but only when it shows the missed movement was not the product of the member’s own design or neglect. The decisive question is whether the member took reasonable measures to be present, both before and after the breakdown. A failure the member could not reasonably anticipate or overcome, met with diligent effort, negates the required element. A failure the member caused, ignored, or could have planned around does not, and may instead prove the offense.
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.