The first contact most service members have with military justice is not a courtroom. It is a commander’s office, a piece of paper, and a decision to make in a few days: accept the proceeding or demand trial. That proceeding is non-judicial punishment, and the choices made at that stage follow a career far longer than the punishment itself. Here is how it works, what has changed about the standard a commander applies, and what to weigh before you sign.
Military Crime and Punishment
Military offenses vary widely in scope and severity. Many parallel civilian crimes, such as robbery, assault, and murder. Others exist only in the military context, such as mutiny, desertion, and aiding the enemy.
The response varies with the severity of the alleged conduct. Non-judicial punishment, commonly called NJP, is the mechanism used for minor offenses and is one of the dispositions service members encounter most often.
NJP is not a judicial proceeding. It allows a commander to resolve allegations of minor misconduct without referring the matter to a court martial. A record of non-judicial punishment is filed under service regulation, and where it is filed matters: filing in the performance portion of a personnel record can affect promotion, assignment, and retention decisions for years, while local filing generally does not travel the same way. Ask where the record will be filed before you decide how to proceed, because the filing decision carries consequences of its own beyond the punishment imposed.
Non-Judicial Punishment Across the Services
The service differences matter more than they appear to. The terminology, the standard of proof, the appeal route, and the filing decision are set by each service’s own regulation, which means advice drawn from another branch’s process can be confidently wrong. Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law represents service members in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and Space Force, and the first thing to establish is which service’s regulation governs the proceeding you are in.
The six armed services use different names for the same mechanism:
- The Coast Guard and Navy call it Captain’s Mast
- The Army, Air Force, and Space Force call it an Article 15
- The Marine Corps calls it Office Hours
The name Article 15 is the one used most often in general discussion, because Article 15 of the UCMJ is the authority for the proceeding.
The Standard of Proof
In the Army, the current standard is a preponderance of the evidence. The current edition of Army Regulation 27-10, effective 8 January 2025, provides that before finding a Soldier guilty, the commander must be convinced by a preponderance of the evidence that the Soldier committed the offense, and that punishment will not be imposed unless a preponderance of the evidence so convinces the commander.
This is a change. Earlier editions of the same regulation provided that a commander could not impose punishment unless convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, and material written under those editions, including the original version of this page, stated that standard accurately at the time. It is no longer current for the Army. The other services set their standards in their own regulations, and if you are not a Soldier, confirm the standard that applies to you rather than assuming the Army rule.
The practical consequence is direct: the threshold a commander applies at NJP is now lower than the threshold the government must meet at a court martial. That difference is part of the calculation when deciding whether to accept NJP or demand trial.
Article 15 Offenses and Available Punishments
Conduct leading to NJP may occur on or off base. Off base conduct can draw both civilian and military attention depending on the offense. Examples include:
- Contempt toward officials
- Absence without leave
- Underage drinking
- Failure to obey an order
- Disrespect toward a superior officer
- Sleeping on duty
- Disorderly conduct
- False official statements
The punishments a commander may impose depend on the grade of the commander imposing them, on the accused’s rank, and on whether the accused is attached to or embarked in a vessel. The ranges set out in the Manual for Courts-Martial include reduction in grade, forfeiture of pay, extra duties, restriction, and, in specified circumstances, correctional custody or confinement.
Because these ranges differ by the imposing authority and the circumstances, ask your defense counsel what the maximum is in your specific situation. Published summaries frequently give a single set of figures that does not apply across the board.
A commander may suspend a punishment for a period. If no further offense occurs during that period, the suspended punishment is not executed.
Accepting or Refusing an Article 15
This is the decision point, and it is the one service members most often reach alone, on a short clock, without advice. Refusing an Article 15 is not a strategy by itself. It moves the matter toward a forum where the government has to meet a higher standard of proof, and where the consequences available are also higher. Mr. Jordan served as an Army prosecutor before opening his own practice, and the question worth working through at this stage is what the government actually has, because that is what decides whether demanding trial improves the position or worsens it.
If a commander offers NJP, you can accept the proceeding or refuse it and demand trial by court martial. There are limited circumstances, involving members attached to or embarked in a vessel, where that right to refuse does not apply.
Accepting an Article 15 is not an admission of guilt. It means you accept that the commander will decide the matter. If you contest the allegation, the commander must hear your side. You may present evidence, ask that witnesses be heard, and offer matters in extenuation and mitigation.
The usual reason to accept is that the punishments available at NJP are lower than those available at a court martial, and NJP does not produce a federal criminal conviction.
The usual reason to refuse is procedural: courts martial operate under formal rules of evidence and procedure that NJP does not.
This decision has consequences for your record and your career, and it is worth discussing with counsel before you sign anything.
Appealing an Article 15
If punishment is imposed, you may appeal to the next superior authority. The appeal window is short. Grounds generally include that the punishment was unjust or disproportionate to the offense.
The authority considering the appeal cannot increase your punishment. If the appeal is unsuccessful, the next avenue is an application to the Board for Correction of Military Records.
Related Case Results
An Article 15 can be contested and it can be appealed. Results include an Article 15 appeal that was partly overturned with rank retained for an Army staff sergeant in Belgium and an Article 15 resolved with an oral reprimand for a soldier at Fort Hood.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Every case turns on its own facts.
Seek Advice From a Military Attorney
You have a short window and three questions to answer: what the government actually has, where the record will be filed, and whether demanding trial improves your position or worsens it. None of those answer themselves, and the decision is not reversible once the paperwork is signed.
Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law is a former Army JAG officer who represents service members at Article 15, Captain’s Mast, and Office Hours proceedings in every branch. Call (888) 643-6254 before you sign.