Few scenarios capture the friction between human error and military duty as cleanly as a service member who shows up at what they believe is the correct hour, only to discover the unit departed earlier because of a time zone difference they misunderstood. The member crossed a time zone, relied on the wrong clock, or was told the wrong local time, and the aircraft or ship was already gone. The natural question is whether that kind of honest confusion can excuse a charge of missing movement under Article 87 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. section 887). The answer depends almost entirely on how the offense is defined, because Article 87 is built around two distinct mental states, and being misinformed about a time zone affects them very differently.
The structure of Article 87
Article 87 provides that 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 shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. To convict, the government must prove that the accused was required in the course of duty to move with the ship, aircraft, or unit; that the accused knew of the prospective movement; and that the accused missed the movement, and that the miss was through design or through neglect.
The phrase through design or through neglect is the heart of the analysis. Design means the member intended to miss the movement, a purposeful act. Neglect means the member failed to take the measures a reasonable person would have taken under the circumstances to be present, or acted without adequate regard for the likely consequences. A time zone misunderstanding is almost never about design. The member who misjudged the clock was trying to make the movement, not avoid it. So the real question is whether the confusion amounts to neglect.
Knowledge of the movement versus knowledge of the exact time
A common defense instinct is to argue the member did not know when to be there, but Article 87 does not require knowledge of the precise hour or even the exact date. It requires knowledge of the prospective movement. A member who knew the unit was deploying, knew it was leaving from a given location, and was responsible for being there generally cannot defeat the knowledge element merely by claiming uncertainty about the exact departure time. That means a time zone mistake usually cannot be recast as a failure of the knowledge element. Instead it lives or dies on whether the member’s reliance on the wrong time was reasonable, which is the neglect inquiry.
When the confusion looks like neglect
If the member had access to the correct departure time and the means to confirm it but simply assumed a time zone that turned out to be wrong, that assumption tends to look like neglect. The reasonable service member preparing to move with a unit confirms the local reporting time, accounts for known time zone differences when traveling, and builds in a margin against ordinary mistakes. A member who arrives an hour late because they never checked which time zone the departure time was stated in has likely failed to take the measures a reasonable person would take, and that is precisely what neglect describes. The fact that the error was honest does not help, because neglect is about carelessness, not bad intent. An honest mistake can still be a negligent one.
When the confusion may genuinely excuse the miss
The picture changes when the member did everything reasonable and was nonetheless misled by a source the member was entitled to rely on. Suppose the member was affirmatively given the wrong local reporting time by someone with authority over the movement, confirmed it through proper channels, and arranged to be present at that stated time, only to learn the time was misstated to the member through no fault of their own. In that situation the member may not have been negligent at all, because the failure traces to misinformation the member could not reasonably have detected or corrected. If the government cannot prove the member fell short of the reasonable standard, it cannot prove neglect, and without design or neglect there is no Article 87 violation. This is not a special time zone rule. It is the ordinary application of the neglect element. The defense is honest and reasonable reliance, and it succeeds only when the reliance was in fact reasonable.
The reasonableness inquiry is fact intensive
Because everything turns on neglect, these cases are decided on their specific facts. Relevant considerations include what the member was told and by whom, what written orders or itineraries the member received and what time zone they specified, whether the member traveled across time zones and how clearly that was flagged, what steps the member took to confirm the reporting time, and whether a reasonable person in the member’s position would have caught the discrepancy. The more the record shows the member actively confirmed the time through reliable channels and was still misled, the stronger the defense. The more it shows the member assumed, guessed, or failed to check, the more the miss looks like neglect.
Distinguishing missing movement from absence offenses
It is worth noting that a member who misses a movement may also face scrutiny under Article 86 for the resulting unauthorized absence, and the analysis there is similar in that basic unauthorized absence does not require a specific intent, so an honest but careless mistake about timing can still support an absence finding. The reasonable reliance argument that defeats neglect under Article 87 may also bear on whether any absence was truly unauthorized, but counsel should treat the two offenses separately and not assume that beating one automatically beats the other.
The bottom line
Being misinformed about a time zone change can excuse missing movement, but only when it negates the neglect element by showing the member acted reasonably and was misled by a source the member was entitled to trust. It cannot excuse the miss when the member simply assumed the wrong time or failed to confirm the correct reporting time, because that is the kind of carelessness Article 87 treats as neglect. The mental state matters more than the sincerity of the mistake. A member in this position should preserve everything that shows what they were told, what they confirmed, and what steps they took, because the entire defense rests on demonstrating that their reliance on the time they used was reasonable under the circumstances.
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.