Article 87 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, codified at 10 U.S.C. 887, addresses a specific and operationally serious form of misconduct: failing to move with a ship, aircraft, or unit when required to do so. While it shares some surface similarity with absence offenses, missing movement is treated as its own crime because of the direct harm it does to military operations. When a unit deploys or a vessel sails, the absence of a single service member can leave a gap in a crew, a team, or a mission, and the law responds accordingly.
What the Article Covers
Article 87 punishes a person who, through neglect or design, misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which the person is required to move. The offense focuses on movement that has operational significance. The classic examples are a sailor who fails to be aboard when the ship gets underway, an airman who is not present when an aircraft departs, or a soldier who is not with the unit when it deploys. The crime is not simply about being absent; it is about being absent at the precise moment when the service member’s presence was needed for the unit to move as planned.
This operational focus is what separates Article 87 from Article 86, which covers unauthorized absence more generally. A service member can be absent without leave and never miss a movement, and a service member can miss a movement even in situations where a general absence charge might be hard to sustain. Article 87 exists because missing a movement strikes directly at readiness and mission accomplishment.
The Elements
To convict under Article 87, the government must prove four elements. First, that the accused was required to move with a ship, aircraft, or unit. Second, that the accused knew of the prospective movement. Third, that the accused missed the movement. And fourth, that the accused missed the movement through design or through neglect. Knowledge of the scheduled movement is essential; a service member who genuinely did not know about it has a strong argument against conviction. The fourth element, the accused’s state of mind, determines both whether the offense is made out and how severely it can be punished.
Design Versus Neglect
The distinction between design and neglect is the heart of Article 87. Design means the movement was missed intentionally, reflecting a specific purpose to miss it. A service member who deliberately stays away so as not to deploy has missed the movement by design. Neglect means failing to take the measures that were reasonable under the circumstances to be present for the movement, or acting without adequate attention to the likely consequences. A service member who oversleeps, mismanages travel, or carelessly ignores reporting times may have missed the movement by neglect.
Both forms are punishable, but they are not equivalent. Design reflects a conscious choice to avoid an operational obligation, while neglect reflects carelessness rather than intent. Because design is more culpable, it carries the heavier maximum punishment. Proving design requires evidence of purpose, often shown circumstantially through statements, planning, or conduct, while neglect requires showing that the service member fell short of a reasonable standard of care.
Maximum Punishment
The maximum punishment depends on whether the movement was missed by design or by neglect. For missing movement by design, the maximum is reduction to the lowest enlisted grade, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for two years, and a dishonorable discharge. For missing movement by neglect, the maximum is reduction to the lowest enlisted grade, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for one year, and a bad-conduct discharge. The difference reflects the law’s judgment that an intentional failure to deploy is more serious than a careless one.
Defenses
A central defense is lack of knowledge. Because the government must prove the accused knew of the prospective movement, showing that the service member was never properly notified, or reasonably did not understand when or where the movement would occur, can defeat the charge. For a charge framed as missing movement by design, the defense may argue that the absence was the product of carelessness rather than intent, which, if accepted, can reduce the offense to the neglect form with its lower punishment. Inability to make the movement due to circumstances genuinely beyond the member’s control, such as serious illness or detention, can negate the neglect or design element. The defense may also contest whether the accused was in fact required to move with the particular ship, aircraft, or unit alleged.
How It Works in Practice
Missing movement charges most often arise around deployments, ship sailings, and significant unit relocations, where the timing of a service member’s presence is fixed and operationally critical. Commanders take the offense seriously because it can affect a mission and because it sends a message about the reliability the service expects from every member. In practice, the design-versus-neglect determination drives much of the litigation and the eventual outcome. A member who simply made a mistake faces the prospect of a neglect conviction with a comparatively lower ceiling, while a member who deliberately avoided deployment faces the steeper design penalties. The article underscores a basic expectation of military service: when the unit moves, its members move with it, and a failure to do so carries consequences calibrated to whether it was a choice or a lapse.
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.