Military Lawyers

Yes. A military attorney can help a service member facing nonjudicial punishment in several important ways, from advising on the critical decision of whether to accept the proceeding to preparing a defense and pursuing an appeal. Nonjudicial punishment, authorized by Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, is faster and less formal than a court-martial, but it can still carry real consequences for rank, pay, and career. Understanding what it is and how counsel can assist helps a service member make sound decisions. This article explains the process and the concrete role an attorney plays.

What Nonjudicial Punishment Is

Nonjudicial punishment, often called NJP, Article 15, captain’s mast in the Navy and Coast Guard, or office hours in the Marine Corps, allows a commander to address minor misconduct without a criminal trial. It is a disciplinary tool, not a criminal conviction, and it is generally not a federal criminal conviction in the way a court-martial result can be. The commander decides whether the member committed the offense and, if so, imposes punishment within the limits set by the member’s situation and the commander’s authority.

The available punishments depend on the type of Article 15 and the rank of the imposing commander. In the Army framework, for example, proceedings are classified as summarized, company grade, or field grade, with field grade Article 15s carrying broader punishment authority than company grade. Possible punishments can include reduction in grade, forfeiture of pay, extra duty, restriction, and a reprimand, with the severity tied to the level of the proceeding and the imposing officer’s authority. The specific maximums are governed by the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts-Martial as implemented by each service.

The Critical Right to Refuse

One of the most important features of nonjudicial punishment is that, in most cases, a service member has the right to refuse it and instead demand trial by court-martial. There is a notable exception: the right to refuse generally does not apply to a member attached to or embarked on a vessel. If a member refuses Article 15, the command may choose to refer the matter to a court-martial, though it is not required to do so.

This decision is consequential and is rarely obvious. Accepting NJP usually means lower maximum exposure and no federal criminal conviction, but it also means the commander, not a neutral judge or panel, decides guilt under a lower standard …

Article 93 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes it a crime for a service member to be cruel toward, or to oppress or maltreat, any person who is subject to that member’s orders. The offense exists because the chain of command places real power in the hands of supervisors, and that power can be abused. Unlike many offenses that require proof of a specific intent or a tangible injury, Article 93 focuses on the relationship between the parties and the character of the treatment. The questions and answers below explain who the article protects, what the government must prove, how sexual harassment fits within the offense, and what a charge means for a service member in practice.

The Basic Offense

1. What does Article 93 prohibit?

Article 93 prohibits cruelty toward, and the oppression or maltreatment of, any person who is subject to the orders of the accused. It targets the abuse of supervisory authority within the armed forces.

2. What is the statutory text?

Article 93 is codified at 10 U.S.C. 893. It provides that any person subject to the code who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

3. Why does this offense exist?

The military depends on supervisors using lawful authority responsibly. Article 93 deters and punishes the misuse of that authority against subordinates, protecting good order, discipline, and the welfare of service members who are not in a position to push back against a superior.

4. Who is protected by Article 93?

The article protects any person who is subject to the orders of the accused. That includes service members junior to the accused and others who, because of the circumstances, must obey the accused’s orders.

5. What does it mean to be subject to a person’s orders?

A person is subject to another’s orders when that person must obey the lawful orders of the accused, whether because of rank, duty position, or the situation. The relationship of authority is the heart of the offense. Without it, Article 93 does not apply.

The Elements

6. What must the government prove?

The government must prove two things: that a certain person was subject to the orders of the accused, and that the accused was cruel toward, or oppressed, or maltreated that person. Both elements must be established beyond …

Yes. A military attorney can help a service member who is seeking, or has been approved for, a conscientious objector discharge. While the underlying application proves the belief, the discharge itself raises its own set of questions about characterization of service, timing, benefits, and the records that follow a member into civilian life. This article focuses on the discharge side of conscientious objection, meaning what happens when a Class 1-O claim succeeds and the member leaves the service, and how counsel can protect the member’s interests at that stage. It is distinct from the question of how to build and win the underlying claim.

What a Conscientious Objector Discharge Is

Under DoD Instruction 1300.06, a service member who is recognized as a Class 1-O conscientious objector opposes participation in war in any form and may be discharged from the military or, in some circumstances, released from a service obligation. This differs from the Class 1-A-O objector, who opposes only combatant duty and is reassigned to a noncombatant role rather than discharged. The 1-O outcome ends the member’s service, which is why the characterization and consequences of that discharge matter so much.

It is important to understand that a conscientious objector discharge is an administrative separation, not a punishment. A service member who qualifies has not done anything wrong; the member has demonstrated a sincere, deeply held objection to war in any form. The characterization of service therefore should reflect that the separation is based on belief rather than misconduct, and protecting that characterization is a key reason to involve counsel.

How the Discharge Stage Works

The discharge follows the adjudication of the claim. The application, the chaplain’s interview, the mental health evaluation, the investigating officer’s hearing and report, and any supporting evidence form the record on which the decision is made. If the decision authority approves a 1-O classification, the service processes the member for separation under the applicable branch regulation. The member’s discharge documents, including the DD Form 214, will reflect the separation, and the narrative reason and characterization recorded there can affect future employment, benefits, and reputation.

Until the discharge is final, the member generally remains subject to military authority and must continue to follow lawful orders that are consistent with the recognized belief. The transition from approved claim to completed separation involves administrative steps, and errors at this stage, such as an incorrect narrative reason or an …

Service members facing a court-martial, an administrative board, or a serious adverse action quickly run into a choice that civilians never have to make: detailed military counsel, individual military counsel, or retained civilian counsel, and in many cases some combination of the three. The question is not only which to choose, but how to use whichever you choose effectively. Finding the right military attorney means first understanding the three forms of representation the law makes available, then matching them to your situation and your goals.

The three forms of representation

The Uniform Code of Military Justice gives an accused at court-martial a generous set of counsel rights. Under Article 38(b), an accused is entitled to be represented by detailed military defense counsel, may request a particular military lawyer as individual military counsel if that lawyer is reasonably available, and may retain civilian counsel at the accused’s own expense.

Detailed military counsel is the lawyer the service assigns to your case at no cost. These attorneys belong to the defense organization and handle military cases as their full-time work, so they tend to be familiar with the local court, the convening authority’s practices, and the rhythm of military litigation. You receive detailed counsel regardless of your ability to pay.

Individual military counsel is a military lawyer of your own selection. If you identify a specific judge advocate you want and that person is determined to be reasonably available, you can request that lawyer represent you. When an individual military counsel is approved, the originally detailed counsel may be excused or, on request, may be permitted to remain on the case, which can give you more than one military attorney at no cost.

Civilian counsel is a lawyer you hire and pay yourself. A civilian attorney experienced in military law brings independence from the chain of command, often years of focused court-martial experience, and the ability to devote concentrated attention to your case. By rule, when an accused is represented by civilian counsel, detailed or selected military counsel acts as associate counsel unless the accused excuses them, so retaining a civilian lawyer does not have to mean losing your military counsel.

Using military and civilian counsel together effectively

The most effective arrangement is frequently not civilian instead of military, but civilian plus military. The combination pairs the civilian attorney’s experience and independence with the military attorney’s local knowledge and access. The civilian …

Separation from military service can happen for many reasons, and the path it takes determines what is at stake and what protections apply. Two broad categories cover most cases that are not punitive discharges from a court-martial: medical separation, which addresses a service member who can no longer meet medical retention standards, and administrative separation, which removes a member for reasons such as misconduct, performance, or other administrative grounds. Each follows its own process, each can have lasting consequences for benefits and reputation, and in each a military attorney can make a meaningful difference. This article explains both processes and where counsel helps.

Medical separation and the disability evaluation system

A medical separation begins when a service member has a medical condition that may prevent them from meeting the standards required to stay in service. The process is run through the Integrated Disability Evaluation System, often called IDES, in which the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs coordinate so that the VA disability rating is determined during the process rather than after separation.

The process has two key boards. The Medical Evaluation Board, or MEB, is the first stage. A military physician refers a member to the MEB when a condition appears to fall below medical retention standards, and the MEB documents the member’s conditions and determines whether they meet retention standards. If the MEB finds that a condition may make the member unfit for duty, the case proceeds to the Physical Evaluation Board, or PEB.

The PEB decides whether a condition renders the member unfit to perform their duties and, if so, makes findings that determine the outcome. The PEB has an informal stage, which reviews the records, and a formal stage, which allows the member to appear and present evidence if they disagree with the informal findings. The outcome turns substantially on the disability rating assigned. A combined rating below a set threshold generally results in separation with severance pay, while a rating at or above that threshold generally results in medical retirement rather than separation, and some cases result in placement on a temporary disability retired list while a condition is monitored.

The difference between medical separation with severance pay and medical retirement is enormous, because retirement carries continuing pay and benefits that separation does not. That is precisely why legal help matters.

How an attorney helps in a medical separation

A military attorney …

Yes. A military attorney can help a service member navigate the medical discharge process, and the stakes make that help worthwhile. A medical discharge involves a multi-step evaluation that determines whether a member can keep serving, whether a medical condition is connected to service, and what disability rating the member receives. Those determinations control whether a member is separated or retired and what benefits follow for the rest of the member’s life. Because the process is technical and the outcomes carry such weight, knowledgeable counsel can be a valuable advocate. This article explains how the process works and where an attorney makes a difference.

How the medical discharge process works

When a service member develops a medical condition that may prevent continued service, the case enters the disability evaluation system, commonly administered as the Integrated Disability Evaluation System. The process moves through several stages, each with a distinct purpose.

The first stage is the Medical Evaluation Board. After a member’s condition appears unlikely to improve enough to allow a return to full duty, providers refer the case to this board, made up of medical authorities at the military treatment facility. The Medical Evaluation Board does not assign a disability rating. Its job is to decide whether the condition fails to meet the medical retention standards for continued service.

If the member does not meet retention standards, the case proceeds to the Physical Evaluation Board. This board makes the fitness determination, deciding whether the condition renders the member unfit to perform the duties of the member’s office, grade, rank, or rating. The Physical Evaluation Board also addresses whether conditions are service connected and assigns disability percentages, which are determined under the standardized rating schedule used for veterans’ disabilities. The Physical Evaluation Board ordinarily issues an informal decision first, and a member who disagrees may request a formal hearing.

Throughout the process, the member works with a Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Officer, who coordinates the administrative steps. The rating and fitness outcomes determine whether the member is separated, separated with severance, or medically retired, and they shape the benefits the member will receive.

Why the outcomes matter so much

Two determinations drive everything: whether the member is found unfit, and what disability rating attaches. Together they decide whether a member is medically separated or medically retired, and a medical retirement generally carries more substantial long-term benefits. A rating that is set too …

The United States and Russia both discipline their armed forces through specialized legal arrangements, but the structures could hardly be more different. The American system uses a single, self-contained military code administered by courts the military itself convenes. Russia has no separate court-martial system at all: offenses by service members are defined in the ordinary national criminal code and tried in specialized military courts that are a branch of the regular judiciary. Comparing the two reveals two opposite design choices, a freestanding military justice code on one side and the integration of military offenses into the general criminal law on the other.

The American framework: a freestanding military code

In the United States, military law for the active components of all the armed forces is consolidated in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the UCMJ, enacted by Congress and codified in Title 10 of the United States Code. The UCMJ is comprehensive. It defines purely military offenses such as desertion and absence without leave, and it also reaches offenses that mirror civilian crimes, such as theft, assault, and homicide, all triable under military jurisdiction.

The UCMJ is implemented through the Manual for Courts-Martial, a presidential document supplying the Rules for Courts-Martial and the Military Rules of Evidence. Trials occur before courts-martial in three forms under Article 16: summary, special, and general. A general court-martial handles the most serious cases and seats a military judge with a panel of members, and the accused may elect trial by military judge alone. The 2016 Military Justice Act, reflected in the 2019 Manual, fixed panel sizes by statute and modernized sentencing and voting.

Two features define the American model. The military administers it, with commanders convening courts-martial and military judges and lawyers running them, although recent reforms shifted certain prosecution decisions to independent special trial counsel. And it provides a complete appellate ladder, from the service Courts of Criminal Appeals to the civilian Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, with discretionary review possible at the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Russian framework: military offenses inside the criminal code

Russia takes the opposite approach. It does not maintain a separate military criminal code in the way the United States maintains the UCMJ. Instead, the offenses that American law would treat as distinctly military are set out within the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation itself, in a dedicated chapter on crimes against …

Social media has collapsed the distance between a service member’s private opinions and the public eye. A post written in a few seconds from a barracks bunk can travel to a commander’s inbox, a recruiter’s screen, or a journalist’s feed within hours. Because a service member remains subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) around the clock and on every platform, what looks like ordinary online expression can carry real legal exposure. If you are worried about how a post, a comment, or a photograph in uniform might be treated, the practical question becomes how to find the right military attorney to assess and defend that risk. This guide walks through the kind of conduct that creates exposure and, more importantly, how to identify counsel genuinely equipped to handle it.

Why social media in uniform carries distinct legal risk

The first thing the right attorney will explain is that the military does not regulate online speech through a single statute. Several UCMJ provisions can apply depending on who you are and what you posted.

Commissioned officers face Article 88, contempt toward officials. The current statutory text, codified at 10 U.S.C. section 888, makes it an offense for a commissioned officer to use contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the governor or legislature of a state, commonwealth, or possession where the officer is on duty or present. A tagged or public post mocking one of those officials can implicate Article 88 in a way that an enlisted member’s identical post does not.

Article 89 addresses disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, and Article 91 addresses insubordinate conduct toward warrant officers and noncommissioned officers, both of which can reach online disrespect directed at the chain of command. Article 133, conduct unbecoming an officer, is a broad standard that can capture online behavior an officer engages in that the service views as dishonorable or indecent. The FY2022 National Defense Authorization Act struck the former words “and a gentleman” from that offense. Article 134, the general article, can apply to enlisted members and officers alike when speech or images are prejudicial to good order and discipline or are of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Beyond the UCMJ, conduct can violate service-specific regulations and Department of Defense policy, including rules …

Article 100 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is one of the most serious offenses in all of military law. It addresses the conduct of a service member who forces, or tries to force, a commander to give up a military position, vessel, aircraft, or property to an enemy, or who strikes the colors or flag to an enemy without authority. The full statutory title is “Subordinate compelling surrender,” and it is codified at 10 U.S.C. 900. This guide explains what the article covers, the elements the government must prove, the defenses that may apply, the maximum punishment, and what an accused service member should understand if facing such a charge.

What Article 100 Prohibits

The statute reaches a person subject to the UCMJ who compels or attempts to compel the commander of any place, vessel, aircraft, or other military property, or of any body of members of the armed forces, to give it up to an enemy or to abandon it, or who strikes the colors or flag to an enemy without proper authority. In plain terms, the offense targets a subordinate who pressures or forces a commander into surrender or abandonment, or who unilaterally signals surrender by striking the colors.

The article is grounded in the chain of command and the conduct expected of forces in the presence of an enemy. Surrender and the decision to abandon a position are matters reserved to proper authority. Article 100 criminalizes the act of a subordinate wresting that decision away through compulsion, or bypassing authority altogether by striking the colors or flag to the enemy.

Why the Full Statutory Name Matters

Although this article is commonly described as “compelling surrender,” the precise heading in Title 10 is “Subordinate compelling surrender.” The wording is deliberate. The offense is framed around a subordinate acting against, or in place of, the proper commander. Understanding the offense requires keeping that relationship in view, because the wrong being punished is a junior member overriding the lawful authority that controls whether a position is held, abandoned, or surrendered.

The Two Forms of the Offense

Article 100 describes more than one way to violate it. The first form is compelling or attempting to compel a commander to give up or abandon a place, vessel, aircraft, military property, or body of forces to an enemy. This is conduct directed at the commander, forcing a surrender decision. The second …

Yes, and the help is often more important than service members expect. A fight at a bar off-base can feel like a purely civilian problem, something the local police will sort out. In reality, the same incident can expose you to military discipline regardless of where it happened, and you may be facing two systems at once. A military attorney understands how those systems interact and can keep a single bad night from ending a career. This article explains why off-base conduct reaches the military, what charges may apply, and how counsel helps.

Why off-base conduct is still the military’s business

A common misconception is that the military only cares about what happens on post or on duty. It is not so. Court-martial jurisdiction generally attaches to a person’s status as a service member, not to the location of the alleged offense. That means conduct off-base and off-duty can still be charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A bar fight that produces a civilian arrest can therefore also produce a military investigation and military charges.

The likely charge: Article 128 assault

The most directly applicable offense for a physical altercation is assault under Article 128 of the UCMJ, codified at 10 U.S.C. 928. Article 128 broadly covers the unlawful use of force or violence against another person, and it includes both simple assault and more serious aggravated forms, such as assault with a dangerous weapon or assault that causes substantial or grievous bodily harm. The severity of the charge, and the potential punishment, depend heavily on the facts: whether anyone was seriously injured, whether a weapon or object was used, and the surrounding circumstances.

Depending on the conduct, the command might also consider other provisions, such as drunk and disorderly conduct or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. A lawyer evaluates which charges realistically fit the facts and which are overreach.

The two-system problem: civilian and military exposure

Because the fight happened off-base and may involve civilians, you can face parallel proceedings. The local civilian authorities can investigate and prosecute the assault under state law, and the military can pursue its own action under the UCMJ for the same underlying conduct. Constitutional double jeopardy protections generally do not bar a separate sovereign from prosecuting, so a civilian disposition does not automatically end the military’s interest. Coordinating a strategy across both forums is one of the most valuable …