Article 87 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), codified at 10 U.S.C. 887, makes it an offense to miss the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which the member is required to move, when the movement is missed through design or neglect. A service member who failed to make a movement because of a car breakdown, a missed ride, or some other transportation problem will naturally ask whether the absence of personal transportation excuses the offense. The answer depends entirely on which mental state the government is trying to prove and on what the member did to overcome the transportation problem. Lack of transportation can support a defense, but it is not an automatic one.
The elements and the two mental states
To convict under Article 87, the prosecution must prove that the member was required to move with a specific ship, aircraft, or unit, that the member knew of the prospective movement, that the member missed the movement, and that the movement was missed through design or neglect. The phrase “design or neglect” describes two different mental states, and the distinction is the heart of any transportation defense.
Design means the member intentionally missed the movement, with a specific intent to do so. Neglect means the member failed to exercise the due care that a reasonably careful person would have used under the circumstances. The maximum punishment is more severe for missing movement by design than by neglect, which reflects how seriously the law treats a deliberate failure as opposed to a careless one.
Why transportation problems point away from design
If the government charges missing movement by design, a genuine transportation failure is powerful evidence against the required intent. Design requires that the member purposely missed the movement. A member who was actively trying to reach the point of departure, but was thwarted by a vehicle that would not start or a ride that never arrived, was by definition not trying to miss the movement. Evidence of good-faith efforts to be present, such as attempts to arrange a ride, calls for help, or efforts to reach the unit, directly contradicts the claim of purposeful avoidance. In that posture, lack of transportation is not merely a viable defense; it can negate an essential element of the more serious form of the offense.
The harder question is neglect
The real battleground is usually neglect. Here the question is not whether the member intended to miss the movement, but whether the member exercised reasonable care to make it. Simply lacking a car is not, by itself, a defense, because the law expects a service member to take reasonable measures to be present for a known movement. If the member knew the movement was coming and failed to arrange adequate transportation, oversleeping, relying on an unreliable ride without a backup, or otherwise failing to plan, then the absence of transportation may be the very thing that proves neglect rather than excuses it.
Conversely, if the member took all reasonable measures to be present and the failure was genuinely unavoidable, a neglect theory should fail. The standard is reasonable care, not a guarantee of success. A member whose carefully arranged transportation broke down unexpectedly, who then promptly sought alternatives and notified the chain of command, has a strong argument that the missed movement was not the product of any culpable failure of care. The defense turns on the steps the member took, not merely on the fact that a vehicle was unavailable.
What makes the defense persuasive
Because both versions of the defense depend on the member’s conduct, the supporting facts matter enormously. Persuasive evidence includes proof that the member planned ahead for the movement, attempted to arrange reliable transportation, kept the chain of command informed when problems arose, and acted promptly to find an alternative once the original plan failed. Documentation such as repair records, ride-share or taxi records, text messages, and witness accounts of the member’s efforts can transform a bare assertion of bad luck into a credible showing of due care. The closer the facts are to “I did everything reasonable and still could not get there,” the stronger the defense.
By contrast, the defense weakens when the member knew of the movement well in advance, had time to secure dependable transportation, and instead relied on a single fragile arrangement or did nothing until it was too late. In those circumstances, the lack of transportation tends to establish the neglect the statute punishes rather than rebut it.
Related considerations
It is worth distinguishing Article 87 from absence offenses such as unauthorized absence. Missing movement is a distinct offense focused on the failure to move with a designated ship, aircraft, or unit, and it requires that the member knew of the movement and was required to be part of it. A transportation defense can also bear on whether the member truly knew of the movement or was properly required to make it, although those are separate elements. The defense should examine each element, not only the mental state, because a failure of proof on knowledge or on the requirement to move can defeat the charge regardless of the transportation issue.
Practical guidance for the accused
A member charged under Article 87 who believes a transportation problem caused the missed movement should preserve evidence of every effort made to be present and of the cause of the failure. That means keeping records of the breakdown or missed ride, of communications with anyone the member relied on for a ride, and of any notice given to the chain of command. The member should request qualified military defense counsel early, because counsel can identify whether the government is proceeding on a design or neglect theory and tailor the defense to negate the specific mental state at issue.
Conclusion
Lack of personal transportation can be a viable defense under Article 87, but its strength depends on the charged mental state and on the member’s own conduct. Against a charge of missing movement by design, evidence of genuine efforts to be present undercuts the required intent. Against a neglect theory, the defense succeeds only if the member took all reasonable measures and the failure was truly unavoidable; merely lacking a car after failing to plan can instead prove the neglect the statute punishes. Because the outcome rests on the facts of the member’s efforts, an accused should document those efforts and consult experienced counsel without delay.
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.