Missing movement is charged under Article 87 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A common assumption is that committing the offense “during wartime” automatically multiplies the maximum punishment, the way it does for desertion. That assumption is wrong, and the distinction is worth explaining carefully. Article 87 does not contain a separate wartime aggravator. Its maximum punishment turns instead on the accused’s mental state, specifically whether the movement was missed by design or by neglect. This article walks through what the statute punishes, what the ceilings are, and why wartime affects the practical picture without changing the formal maximum.
What Article 87 actually prohibits
Article 87 makes it an offense for a service member, through neglect or design, to miss the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which the member is required in the course of duty to move. The core idea is failing to deploy or relocate with one’s assigned ship, aircraft, or unit. The government must prove that the accused was required to move with a specific ship, aircraft, or unit; that the accused knew of the prospective movement; that the accused missed the movement; and that the failure was either through design or through neglect.
The term movement carries a substantial meaning. It refers to a significant relocation such as a deployment or a major unit transfer, not a routine local trip or a brief change of station within a post. A movement large enough to qualify is what gives the offense its seriousness, because missing it can leave a unit short of personnel at the moment it is supposed to be operationally ready.
Design versus neglect, the real variable
The single most important factor in the punishment is whether the accused missed the movement by design or by neglect. These are two different mental states.
Missing movement by design means the member intentionally failed to make the movement, with a specific intent to miss it. This is the more serious form because it reflects a deliberate choice to avoid moving with the unit.
Missing movement by neglect means the member failed to take measures that a reasonable person would have taken under the circumstances to be present for the movement. It captures carelessness rather than intent, such as failing to manage time, leave, or travel in a way that a prudent service member would, with the result that the member was not present when the movement occurred.
The maximum punishments
For missing movement by design, the maximum punishment is a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to the lowest enlisted grade, and confinement for two years. For missing movement by neglect, the maximum is a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to the lowest enlisted grade, and confinement for one year.
These are the ceilings set by the punishment framework in the Manual for Courts-Martial. Service members should be aware that the manual’s punishment structure has been revised over time. Offenses committed on or after December 27, 2023 are addressed under the offense based sentencing framework adopted in the 2024 edition of the Manual for Courts-Martial, while earlier offenses are governed by the prior maximum punishment tables. The two year and one year figures reflect the longstanding ceilings, and the precise sentencing rules applied to any individual case depend on the date of the offense.
Why there is no separate wartime maximum
The phrase “during wartime” naturally invites comparison to desertion under Article 85, which does contain an explicit wartime enhancement. Article 85 provides that desertion or attempted desertion committed in time of war may be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, a dramatically heavier ceiling than for peacetime desertion. Article 87 has no comparable clause. Its maximum is fixed by the design or neglect distinction regardless of whether the country is at war.
That does not mean wartime is irrelevant. It influences the case in two practical ways. First, charging decisions change in a wartime or deployment context, where missing a movement can do real operational harm. The same conduct that might be handled administratively in peacetime may be referred to a court-martial when a unit is deploying into combat. Second, related or more serious charges become more likely. A member who misses a deployment movement may also face charges such as absence without leave under Article 86 or, if the evidence shows an intent to remain away permanently or to avoid hazardous duty, desertion under Article 85 with its wartime exposure. The aggravating reality of war therefore tends to surface through charging and sentencing arguments and through companion offenses rather than through a built in wartime multiplier inside Article 87 itself.
How the pieces fit together
If you are asking specifically about Article 87, the honest and accurate answer is that there is no distinct wartime maximum. The maximum is two years of confinement, a dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade for the by design form, and one year of confinement, a bad-conduct discharge, total forfeitures, and reduction in grade for the by neglect form. Wartime can make a court-martial more likely and can bring desertion or other serious charges into play, and those companion offenses are where the steepest wartime penalties actually live.
Because the facts surrounding a missed deployment often support more than one possible charge, a service member facing this allegation should consult a qualified military defense attorney promptly. Counsel can assess whether the conduct is properly framed as neglect rather than design, whether the alleged movement legally qualifies, and whether the government may attempt to escalate the matter into a desertion case carrying far greater wartime exposure.
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.