UCMJ Article 87: Missing Movement | Joseph L. Jordan
Free Case Evaluation
The ship left without you. The unit deployed and you were not on it. The aircraft departed and you were still on the ground. Whether you missed the movement because you were detained, because your transportation failed, because you deliberately avoided the deployment, or because of a genuine emergency-Article 87 of the UCMJ applies when a service member misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit through design or neglect.
Article 87, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 887, is distinct from [Article 86](https://jordanucmjlaw.com/articles-of-the-ucmj/article-86-absence-without-leave/) (absence without leave). Missing movement focuses specifically on the moment of departure-the ship’s sailing, the aircraft’s takeoff, the unit’s movement-and whether the service member was present for it.
The critical legal distinction within Article 87 is whether the absence was through design (intentional) or through neglect (failure to exercise due care). Design carries a dishonorable discharge and 2 years of confinement; neglect carries a bad-conduct discharge and 1 year. That distinction is frequently litigated. Joseph L. Jordan is a former Army JAG Officer who served as both a prosecutor and defense counsel, including as a former military prosecutor at Fort Hood (Fort Cavazos), Texas. Call **(888) 367-9489** now for a free consultation.
What You Are Facing: Article 87 Missing Movement
The Charge. Article 87 charges you with failing to arrive at the appointed place of departure for a ship, aircraft, or unit movement. This charge carries higher penalties than AWOL because it directly impacts unit readiness and operational capability.
What the Government Must Prove. That you were required to move with a ship, aircraft, or unit, that you knew of the movement, and that you missed it through design (intentional) or neglect. The knowledge element and the design-vs-neglect distinction are critical.
Where the Case Breaks. If you did not receive actual notice of the movement, or if the movement orders were communicated improperly, the knowledge element fails.
The distinction between design and neglect also matters: neglect carries a lower maximum than intentional failure.
What Makes This Dangerous. Missing movement by design carries up to 2 years confinement and a dishonorable discharge. By neglect, up to 1 year and a bad-conduct discharge. In deployment contexts, the charge carries additional weight with panels and judges.
What to Do Right Now. Invoke your Article 31(b) rights. Call (888) 367-9489 for a free consultation.
Elements of Article 87: Missing Movement
For Missing Movement Through Design:
- That the accused knew that a certain ship, aircraft, or unit was going to move or deploy at a certain time
- That the accused missed the movement of that ship, aircraft, or unit
- That the accused did so through design
For Missing Movement Through Neglect:
- That the accused knew that a certain ship, aircraft, or unit was going to move or deploy at a certain time
- That the accused missed the movement of that ship, aircraft, or unit
- That the accused did so through neglect
The Knowledge Element
Both theories require proof that the accused knew about the scheduled movement. An accused who was not informed of the departure time, who was given incorrect information, or who was legitimately unaware of the movement cannot be convicted of missing it through either design or neglect. Defense counsel examines the dissemination of movement orders and whether the accused had actual knowledge of the specific time and fact of departure.
Design vs. Neglect
Design requires that the accused intentionally missed the movement-made a deliberate choice not to be present for the ship’s departure, the aircraft’s flight, or the unit’s deployment. This is the higher mental state and the higher punishment tier. Neglect requires only that the accused failed to exercise ordinary care to ensure timely return for the movement. A service member who made some effort to return-who contacted their unit, who sought transportation, who took steps but failed to arrive in time-may be classified as neglectful rather than designing. Defense counsel builds the evidence of the accused’s efforts to return as the centerpiece of the design-versus-neglect analysis.
Maximum Punishment Under UCMJ Article 87 (MCM 2024)
|
Theory |
Punitive Discharge |
Confinement |
Forfeiture |
|
Through design |
Dishonorable |
2 years |
All pay and allowances |
|
Through neglect |
Bad-conduct |
1 year |
All pay and allowances |
Executive Order 14103
For offenses committed on or after 27 December 2023, EO 14103 shifts sentencing to the military judge. The circumstances of the missed movement-emergency, transportation failure, conflicting orders-are all mitigating factors presented in sentencing.
Defense Vulnerabilities in Article 87 Prosecutions
Vulnerability 1: The government charged design when only neglect is supported.
The most common defense in Article 87 cases is that the evidence supports only neglect, not design. If the accused made any effort to be present for the movement-contacted the command, sought transportation, communicated the delay-that conduct is inconsistent with design. Defense counsel identifies every effort the accused made and argues that the evidence cannot support the higher mental state of design.
Vulnerability 2: The accused lacked knowledge of the specific movement.
Movement orders in operational environments are sometimes communicated imperfectly-through informal channels, on short notice, or in ways that do not reach every member of the unit. Defense counsel examines the chain of communication and identifies any failure in the notification process.
Vulnerability 3: The missed movement was caused by circumstances beyond the accused’s control.
A service member who was detained by civilian authorities, who suffered a medical emergency, or who encountered transportation failures that prevented timely return may not satisfy the neglect element. Defense counsel documents the specific circumstances that caused the absence and argues that the accused exercised reasonable care under the circumstances.
Vulnerability 4: The accused was in an authorized status at the time of departure.
If the accused was on authorized leave, on authorized TDY, or in a status that authorized their absence from the unit at the time of departure, the unlawful absence element is contested. Defense counsel examines the accused’s official status at the time the movement occurred.
Collateral Consequences of an Article 87 Missing Movement Conviction
A conviction under this article carries consequences beyond the sentence imposed at court-martial. A bad-conduct discharge eliminates most VA benefits including GI Bill education benefits and VA home loan eligibility. A federal conviction record appears on all background checks and must be disclosed on employment applications, security clearance questionnaires, and professional licensing applications. Security clearances are typically revoked upon conviction, limiting post-military career options in cleared positions. Defense counsel evaluates collateral consequences as part of the overall case strategy, including whether alternative dispositions such as nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 may achieve a resolution that avoids a federal criminal conviction.
Contact Joseph L. Jordan: Article 87 Defense
With more than 1,000 service members represented and 250+ cases tried to verdict across Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and Space Force, Jordan has defended missing movement cases at installations in the United States, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. He gets on a plane for you.
If you are facing Article 87 charges, the decisions you make now determine the shape of your entire defense. Evidence is preserved or lost in the first days. Witness accounts solidify. Command dynamics shift.
Call (888) 367-9489 now for a free consultation. Available 24/7.
Why Joseph L. Jordan for Missing Movement Cases
Military duty offenses are unique to the UCMJ. They carry no civilian equivalent, and the defense strategies that work in civilian court do not apply. These charges require defense counsel who understands military operations, unit dynamics, command discretion, and the specific regulatory frameworks that define the duty alleged to have been violated. Jordan has prosecuted and defended these cases and understands how the government builds its evidentiary chain, where that chain is weakest, and what defense strategies produce results at trial and in pretrial negotiations. Joseph L. Jordan is a former Army JAG Officer who served as both a prosecutor and defense counsel, including as a former military prosecutor at Fort Hood, Texas and with the 2nd Infantry Division in South Korea.
He understands the operational context in which these charges arise and how command decisions shape the prosecution. He practices exclusively in military law and is highly experienced in criminal trial advocacy. Call (888) 367-9489 now. Available 24/7. defense attorney Joseph L. Jordan has defended service members facing these charges across all military branches. Review our selected case outcomes for examples of cases we have handled. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes; every case depends on its own facts. Before speaking to investigators or law enforcement, assert your Article 31 protections. Understand the full court-martial procedures before your case proceeds.
Frequently Asked Questions: UCMJ Article 87
What is the difference between Article 87 missing movement and Article 86 AWOL?
Article 86 covers unauthorized absence generally—being somewhere other than where you were ordered to be. Article 87 specifically covers the moment of movement: missing the departure of a ship, aircraft, or unit. The two charges can arise from the same underlying absence, and the government may charge both. The specific elements and maximum punishments differ.
If I returned to the unit after the movement, can I still be charged?
Yes. The offense is complete at the moment of the missed movement. Subsequent return to the unit addresses the ongoing AWOL element but does not eliminate the Article 87 charge for the missed movement itself. However, voluntary return and efforts to rejoin the unit are relevant to the sentencing analysis.
Can I be charged with both Article 87 missing movement and Article 85 desertion for the same absence?
Yes. If the government believes the service member’s absence before and after the movement reflects intent to remain away permanently or to avoid hazardous duty, they may charge Article 85 desertion alongside or in lieu of Article 87. Defense counsel addresses the mental state elements for each charge independently.
Article 87 Disclaimer
This page provides general legal information about Article 87, UCMJ. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts. If you are facing charges under Article 87, contact a qualified military defense attorney. Call (888) 367-9489 for a free and confidential consultation.