Article 87 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes it an offense to miss the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit that a service member is required to move with in the course of duty. It is codified at 10 U.S.C. 887. The questions and answers below explain the statute, the two ways it can be violated, and how it differs from absence without leave.
Understanding the Statute
What does Article 87 prohibit?
It prohibits a service member, through neglect or design, from missing the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which the member is required in the course of duty to move. A person who does so shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Where is the offense codified?
It appears at 10 U.S.C. 887. The elements, definitions, and sample specifications are set out in Part IV of the Manual for Courts-Martial.
Does the current version also address jumping from a vessel?
Yes. The current statute is titled to cover both missing movement and jumping from a vessel into the water. Most prosecutions, however, involve the classic missing-movement theory, which is the focus here.
Why does the military treat missing movement seriously?
Movements of ships, aircraft, and units are tied to operational readiness and mission timing. A single member who fails to move can degrade a deployment, leave a billet unfilled, or force last-minute reassignment, so the code treats the failure as a distinct offense.
The Elements
What must the government prove?
The government must prove that the accused was required in the course of duty to move with a ship, aircraft, or unit; that the accused knew of the prospective movement; that the accused actually missed the movement; and that the member missed it through neglect or design.
Does the member have to know about the movement?
Yes. Actual knowledge of the prospective movement is an element. A member who genuinely did not know of the scheduled movement cannot be convicted, though knowledge may be proven by circumstantial evidence.
What counts as a “movement” under the statute?
A movement is a substantial transfer or deployment, such as a ship getting underway, an aircraft departing on a mission, or a unit deploying. A minor, routine local relocation generally does not rise to the level of a covered movement.
Must the member be required to move “in the course of duty”?
Yes. The duty to move with that ship, aircraft, or unit must arise from the member’s official responsibilities, not from a personal choice to travel.
Neglect Versus Design
What is the difference between neglect and design?
Design means the member missed the movement intentionally, with a specific purpose to miss it. Neglect means the member failed to take measures that a reasonable person would have taken under the circumstances to be present for the movement.
Which theory is more serious?
Missing movement by design is the more serious theory because it reflects intentional avoidance. Missing movement by neglect reflects carelessness rather than purpose and carries a lower maximum punishment.
Can oversleeping support a neglect charge?
It can, depending on the facts. If the member acted carelessly, such as failing to set an alarm, ignoring known reporting times, or going so far from the departure point that timely return was unlikely, that conduct can satisfy the neglect theory.
Does design require a confession of intent?
No. Intent to miss the movement may be proven by circumstantial evidence, such as statements, conduct showing avoidance, or steps taken to make presence impossible.
Is missing movement a strict liability offense?
No. The member must have acted through neglect or design. A movement missed despite reasonable diligence, because of an unforeseeable event outside the member’s control, is not a violation.
Punishment
What is the maximum punishment for missing movement by design?
Missing movement by design is punishable by a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for up to two years.
What is the maximum punishment for missing movement by neglect?
Missing movement by neglect is punishable by a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for up to one year.
Why is the punishment split between the two theories?
The split reflects culpability. An intentional avoidance of duty is treated more harshly than a careless failure, even though both undermine readiness.
Can missing movement also lead to administrative consequences?
Yes. Beyond the punitive sentence, a member may face administrative separation, loss of rank, unfavorable evaluations, and harm to future career prospects.
Relationship to Other Offenses
How is missing movement different from absence without leave?
Absence without leave under Article 86 concerns being away from an appointed place of duty. Missing movement under Article 87 focuses specifically on failing to deploy or depart with a designated ship, aircraft, or unit, and it carries heavier maximum punishments because of the operational impact.
Can a member be charged with both AWOL and missing movement?
In some fact patterns the same conduct may implicate both articles, but a member should not be punished twice for what is essentially one continuous act. Charging decisions depend on the specific facts.
How does missing movement differ from desertion?
Desertion under Article 85 requires the intent to remain away permanently or to avoid hazardous duty or shirk important service. Missing movement does not require an intent to remain away permanently; it can be committed through simple neglect.
Is missing movement a lesser version of desertion?
Not exactly. They protect overlapping interests but have different elements. A member who intends to permanently avoid a deployment may face desertion, while one who carelessly misses the same departure may face missing movement.
Practical Scenarios
What if the movement was delayed and the member still missed it?
The question is whether the member missed the movement that actually occurred. If the departure was rescheduled and the member knew of and missed the rescheduled time through neglect or design, the offense can still apply.
What if the member reported late but the ship had already departed?
If the member knew of the movement, was required to move with the vessel, and missed it through neglect or design, arriving after departure does not cure the offense.
What if a personal emergency caused the absence?
A genuine, documented emergency outside the member’s control may negate neglect or design. Whether it does is fact specific and is exactly the kind of issue counsel develops with evidence.
What if the member was told the wrong departure time by a superior?
Erroneous information from proper authority can undercut both the knowledge element and the neglect or design element. The defense would explore what the member was actually told and reasonably believed.
Defense Considerations
What defenses commonly arise in missing-movement cases?
Common defenses include lack of knowledge of the movement, absence of neglect or design, an intervening event outside the member’s control, mistaken or conflicting orders, and challenges to whether the event was a covered movement.
How does the defense attack the knowledge element?
By showing the member was never properly notified, received conflicting instructions, or had no reasonable way to learn the actual departure time.
How does the defense attack the neglect element?
By showing the member took reasonable steps to be present and that the failure resulted from circumstances a reasonable person could not have avoided.
Can medical incapacity be a defense?
Yes. If a genuine medical condition prevented the member from reporting, and the member did not negligently cause that condition, it can defeat the neglect or design element. Documentation is critical.
Process and Strategy
How are missing-movement cases initiated?
They usually begin with a report of the missed movement, followed by an investigation and a decision by the commander, advised by the staff judge advocate, on whether to pursue nonjudicial punishment, administrative action, or court-martial.
Can a missing-movement allegation be handled at nonjudicial punishment?
Lower-level allegations may be addressed through nonjudicial punishment, but serious or intentional cases, especially those tied to a deployment, are frequently referred to court-martial.
Why should a member consult counsel quickly?
Early counsel can preserve evidence of notice, medical issues, and intervening events, and can shape the narrative before charges are referred. Memories and records about departure times fade fast.
Does an Article 87 conviction create a federal criminal record?
A conviction at a general or special court-martial is a federal criminal conviction with lasting consequences for civilian employment and benefits.
Can a member be charged with missing movement of a unit rather than a ship or aircraft?
Yes. The statute expressly covers missing the movement of a ship, an aircraft, or a unit. A member required to deploy with a unit who misses that movement through neglect or design falls within the offense just as a member who misses a vessel’s departure does.
What is the single most important point about Article 87?
That the offense turns on knowledge of the movement and on whether the member missed it through neglect or design. Those two issues, more than anything else, decide whether the conduct is criminal and how severely it can be punished.
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.