Nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), codified at 10 U.S.C. section 815, is the military’s tool for handling minor misconduct without a court-martial. A commander hears the case, decides whether the member committed the offense, and imposes punishment such as extra duty, restriction, reduction in grade, or forfeiture of pay. Because the process is fast and informal, mistakes happen, including situations where a service member did not have the chance to present favorable or mitigating information before punishment was imposed. Military attorneys can and do pursue relief in that situation. The vehicle is usually called an appeal or a request to set aside the punishment, and the law expressly provides for both.
Article 15 is designed to be challenged
Nonjudicial punishment is not meant to be final the moment a commander signs the form. The statute and the implementing service regulations, such as Army Regulation 27-10 for the Army, build in review. A service member who considers the punishment unjust or disproportionate to the offense may appeal to the next superior authority. That appeal is the primary avenue when something went wrong in the proceeding, including a failure to consider available mitigating evidence.
A military attorney, whether a defense counsel or a legal assistance attorney, can assist with that appeal. In fact, members typically have the right to consult with counsel during the Article 15 process, and counsel routinely helps prepare appeals and supporting submissions. So the answer to whether a military attorney is allowed to request relief is yes. The system contemplates counsel participation, and the request is a recognized part of the process rather than an extraordinary measure.
The appeal and the right to submit mitigating matters
The appeal is the natural place to raise a lack of access to mitigating evidence. A member is not required to state reasons for an appeal, but may do so, and the usual grounds are that the member is not guilty on the evidence, that the punishment is excessive, or that some portion of the punishment should be mitigated or suspended. Crucially, the member may attach documents for the superior authority to consider. That is exactly how mitigating evidence that was not before the original commander gets into the record.
So when an attorney argues that an Article 15 was decided without favorable evidence, the attorney can submit that evidence with the appeal: character statements, records that contradict the allegation, documentation of circumstances that lessen culpability, or proof that the member never had a fair opportunity to present such matters. The superior authority then reviews the appeal, often with the advice of a judge advocate, and can grant relief.
Setting aside the punishment
Beyond the appeal, the regulations provide a separate mechanism: the set-aside. A set-aside is an action by which the punishment, or any part of it, whether already executed or not, is set aside, and the rights, privileges, or property affected by the set-aside portion are restored. A nonjudicial punishment is wholly set aside when the imposing commander, a successor in command, or a superior authority sets aside all punishment imposed. The same authorities may also set aside some or all of the findings.
The set-aside is the right concept when the goal is to undo the punishment because of a defect in the proceeding, such as the member not having had access to mitigating evidence. The governing standard for a set-aside generally focuses on whether a clear injustice has resulted. A proceeding in which the member was denied a fair chance to present mitigating matters is the kind of circumstance that can support that conclusion.
Timing matters
There are deadlines, and an attorney must account for them. Appeals must be submitted within the period the regulation allows, which is a defined and relatively short window after punishment is imposed. The set-aside authority is also time sensitive. The power to set aside an executed punishment, and to mitigate certain punishments, will ordinarily be exercised only within four months after the punishment has been executed, absent unusual circumstances. If a commander acts to set aside punishment after that four-month window, the regulation requires a detailed written explanation of the unusual circumstances justifying the late action.
These timelines mean that the failure to consider mitigating evidence should be raised promptly. The strongest posture is to bring the evidence forward on a timely appeal, before deadlines run, rather than waiting and relying on the narrower late set-aside path.
Other avenues if the deadlines have passed
If the appeal and set-aside windows have closed, an attorney still has options, though they are more demanding. A service member can petition the service’s board for correction of military records, arguing that the Article 15 was unjust or erroneous and should be removed or corrected. That process can reach an Article 15 long after it was imposed, and a showing that the member was denied the chance to present mitigating evidence is the kind of error such a board can address. The standard and the burden are higher than on a direct appeal, which is another reason to act early.
Bottom line
Yes, military attorneys can request relief from an Article 15 that was decided without access to mitigating evidence, and the system is built to allow it. The primary route is a timely appeal to the next superior authority, with the mitigating evidence attached for consideration, on the ground that the punishment was unjust or excessive. A set-aside, available from the imposing commander, a successor, or a superior authority, can wholly undo the punishment and restore affected rights, though the power to set aside an executed punishment is generally limited to four months absent unusual circumstances. When those windows have closed, a petition to the board for correction of military records remains available. In every path, the deadlines make prompt action the key.
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.