Article 87 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice addresses missing movement, and in its current form it also covers jumping from a vessel. The role of intent under this article is unusual and important, because intent is what separates the two ways the offense can be committed, and that division directly drives the maximum punishment a service member faces. Whether a member acted by design or by neglect can be the difference between a lighter and a much heavier sentence.
The two ways to miss movement
To convict a member under Article 87, the government must prove four elements. First, that the member was required in the course of duty to move with a ship, aircraft, or unit. Second, that the member knew of the prospective movement. Third, that the member missed the movement. Fourth, that the member missed it through design or neglect. The first three elements concern whether the offense happened at all. The fourth element is where intent enters, because it defines the mental state that accompanied the missed movement.
Design versus neglect
Design and neglect describe two very different mental states. Design means the member missed the movement intentionally. It reflects a specific intent to miss the movement, a purposeful choice to not be present when the ship, aircraft, or unit moved. Neglect, by contrast, does not require any intent to miss the movement at all. Neglect means the member culpably failed to take the measures that were reasonable under the circumstances to ensure presence at the required movement. It can include acting without adequate attention to the likely consequences, such as traveling so far from the departure point that timely return becomes unlikely. The key distinction is that neglect requires only a culpable failure to take reasonable measures, while design requires the specific intent to miss the movement.
Why intent matters at sentencing
The reason intent is so significant under Article 87 is that the maximum authorized punishment depends on which mental state the government proves. Missing movement through neglect and missing movement through design are not punished the same way. The maximum punishment for missing movement by design is greater than the maximum for missing movement by neglect.
For missing movement through neglect, the maximum punishment includes reduction to the lowest enlisted grade, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for one year, and a bad-conduct discharge. For missing movement through design, the maximum punishment includes reduction to the lowest enlisted grade, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for two years, and a dishonorable discharge. The intentional form therefore carries double the maximum confinement and the more severe punitive discharge. This is a direct illustration of how intent shapes sentencing exposure under Article 87.
How the mental state is proven and contested
Because design requires a specific intent, the government must prove that the member purposely chose to miss the movement. This is often shown circumstantially, through statements, conduct before the movement, or a pattern of behavior indicating a plan to be absent. Neglect, requiring only a culpable failure to take reasonable measures, is proven by showing what a reasonable member in the same situation would have done and how the accused fell short.
For the defense, the distinction creates a meaningful avenue. A member who genuinely intended to make the movement but failed through carelessness has a strong argument that the conduct, if anything, amounts to neglect rather than design, which limits sentencing exposure. Contesting the design theory and confining the case to neglect can substantially reduce the maximum punishment. In some cases, the defense may argue that the member did not act culpably at all, for example where an unforeseen and unavoidable circumstance prevented presence, which can challenge the fourth element entirely.
The recent sentencing framework
For offenses committed on or after a recent effective date, military sentencing operates under sentencing parameters and criteria that guide military judges within statutory maximums. These parameters add structure to how sentences are determined, but they do not erase the fundamental point that the design or neglect distinction sets the ceiling. The mental state proven still establishes the maximum the member faces, and the sentencing authority works within that framework. The practical takeaway is that the intent finding remains the anchor for sentencing exposure even within a more structured sentencing system.
Practical implications for a service member
A member charged under Article 87 should pay close attention to the design versus neglect distinction from the outset. Because intent determines the maximum punishment, the way the offense is charged and proven matters enormously. A member should work with counsel to evaluate whether the evidence genuinely supports design or whether the facts point only to neglect, and to develop the evidence and arguments that keep the case on the lower side of that line. Where the member did everything reasonable to be present, the defense should press the absence of culpability altogether.
The bottom line
Under Article 87, intent plays a defining role at sentencing because the offense can be committed either by design, meaning a specific intent to miss the movement, or by neglect, meaning a culpable failure to take reasonable measures. The design form carries a higher maximum punishment, including longer confinement and a dishonorable discharge, while the neglect form carries a lower maximum, including a bad-conduct discharge. Establishing which mental state applies is therefore central to a member’s sentencing exposure, and anyone facing an Article 87 charge should consult experienced military defense counsel to address the design versus neglect question directly.
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.