Article 87 criminalizes the failure of a service member to deploy with their ship, aircraft, or unit when it departs for a scheduled movement. The article distinguishes between missing movement through design (intentional) and through neglect (careless failure to make the movement). It applies to operational deployments, ship movements, and other organized military relocations. Missing movement is treated as a serious offense because it directly impacts unit readiness and operational capability.
1. What are the legal elements required to prove missing movement under Article 87, including the distinction between “design” and “neglect”?
The prosecution must prove three elements: that the accused was assigned to or was required to move with a ship, aircraft, or unit; that the ship, aircraft, or unit departed for a scheduled movement; and that the accused missed the movement either through design or through neglect. “Design” means the accused intentionally failed to make the movement, requiring proof of a deliberate decision not to deploy. “Neglect” means the accused missed the movement due to carelessness, inattention, or failure to take reasonable steps to ensure they would be present for departure.
2. What maximum punishments are authorized for missing movement through design versus through neglect?
Missing movement through design carries a maximum punishment of a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for two years. Missing movement through neglect carries a maximum of a bad conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for one year. The distinction in severity reflects the difference between intentional avoidance of duty and careless failure to meet a military obligation. Design represents a deliberate refusal to deploy, which the UCMJ treats more harshly.
3. How do military courts define “movement” for purposes of Article 87, and does it include routine transfers or only operational deployments?
A “movement” under Article 87 is a transfer of a ship, aircraft, or unit from one location to another. This includes operational deployments, ship sailings, unit relocations, and aircraft missions. It is not limited to combat deployments; any scheduled movement of a unit, ship, or aircraft qualifies. However, routine individual transfers, temporary duty assignments, or administrative moves where the service member travels independently rather than with a unit or vessel generally do not fall under Article 87. The key factor is whether the movement involved a ship, aircraft, or organized unit departure.
4. What evidence is typically used to prove that a service member had actual knowledge of the scheduled movement?
The prosecution relies on official orders, deployment rosters, published movement schedules, unit formation briefings, command emails or bulletins, and testimony from superiors or fellow service members who confirmed that the accused was notified. Sign-in sheets from pre-deployment briefings, acknowledgment of receipt of orders, and electronic communications to the accused are particularly strong evidence. The prosecution must show that the accused either had actual knowledge of the movement or was provided information through established channels that would have given them knowledge.
5. What defenses are available when the accused claims to have been physically unable to make the movement due to illness, injury, or emergency?
The accused may present evidence that physical inability prevented them from making the movement, such as documented hospitalization, medical emergency, or incarceration by civilian authorities. The defense must show that the inability was genuine and not self-inflicted. If the accused was ill but failed to notify the chain of command, the defense is weakened because the failure to communicate may itself constitute neglect. A genuine family emergency may also serve as a defense if the accused took reasonable steps to notify the unit and was unable to make the movement despite good faith efforts.
6. How does missing movement through design differ from desertion under Article 85 when the absence is related to an upcoming deployment?
Missing movement through design focuses specifically on the failure to board or accompany a specific ship, aircraft, or unit at the time of departure. Desertion under Article 85 requires evidence of intent to remain away permanently or intent to avoid hazardous duty. A service member who misses the movement but intends to rejoin the unit later, or who remains present at the duty station after the unit departs, may be charged with missing movement but not desertion. However, if the service member disappears entirely with the intent to permanently avoid deployment, the conduct may support both charges.
7. What role does the unit’s notification and accountability procedures play in establishing or defeating an Article 87 charge?
The unit’s notification procedures are central to proving that the accused had knowledge of the movement. If the unit followed its standard notification protocol and the accused was included in all briefings, rosters, and communications, the prosecution’s case is strengthened. Conversely, if the unit failed to properly notify the accused, the defense can argue that the accused did not know about the movement and cannot be held culpable. Breakdowns in accountability procedures, such as failure to conduct pre-departure musters or failure to issue written orders, can undermine the prosecution’s case.
8. How do military courts treat cases where the service member reported to the wrong location or the wrong time due to confusion?
Genuine confusion about the time or place of departure may support a defense based on mistake of fact, particularly for the neglect variant. However, the court evaluates whether a reasonable service member in the same circumstances would have been confused. If the correct information was widely available and the accused simply failed to pay attention or verify the details, the confusion is evidence of neglect rather than a defense against it. Military courts expect service members to take affirmative steps to confirm movement details, especially for significant deployments.
9. What aggravating factors do sentencing authorities consider when the missed movement involves a combat deployment?
Missing a combat deployment is treated with particular seriousness because it directly affects the unit’s combat readiness and places additional burdens on other service members who must deploy without the accused. Aggravating factors include the operational significance of the deployment, the impact on unit manning and capability, whether the absence required a last-minute replacement, the accused’s military occupational specialty and its criticality to the mission, and any prior history of similar misconduct. The wartime context generally results in significantly harsher sentences.
10. How is Article 87 applied to aircrew members who miss a flight for a military operation?
Article 87 applies directly to aircrew members who fail to board a military aircraft for a scheduled operational movement. The aircraft qualifies as a “ship, aircraft, or unit” under the article’s plain language. The analysis is the same: the prosecution must prove the accused knew of the flight, was required to be on it, and missed it through design or neglect. Given the precise scheduling of military aviation operations and the critical nature of crew manning, missing a military flight is treated seriously and the notification standards are typically well-documented.
11. What is the typical command response continuum from non-judicial punishment to court-martial for missing movement offenses?
Command responses range based on the severity and circumstances of the missed movement. A first-time offense involving neglect, where the service member narrowly missed departure and had a partial explanation, may be resolved through non-judicial punishment under Article 15 or administrative counseling. Intentional missing movement, particularly involving a combat deployment, commonly proceeds to special or general court-martial. Repeat offenders, those with prior disciplinary records, and cases with significant operational impact are more likely to face court-martial. Commanders consider the individual’s overall record, the unit’s circumstances, and the message the disposition sends to the formation.
12. How does a missing movement conviction affect a service member’s deployment record, promotion eligibility, and career trajectory?
A missing movement conviction creates a permanent adverse action in the service member’s record. It effectively ends promotion potential for the foreseeable future and may trigger administrative separation processing. The conviction signals unreliability in deployment contexts, which is a foundational requirement for military service. Security clearances may be reviewed and revoked. Even if the service member is retained, the conviction follows them in evaluation reports and selection board reviews, making advancement extremely unlikely. The career impact is particularly severe in combat arms and other deployment-intensive fields.
Closing
Article 87 enforces the basic obligation of every service member to be present when their unit, ship, or aircraft departs for a scheduled movement. Whether intentional or negligent, failure to make a movement disrupts operational plans, undermines unit cohesion, and places additional burdens on fellow service members who must carry the mission forward without the absent individual.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. Military law is complex and fact-specific. Any person facing charges or seeking guidance under the UCMJ should consult a qualified military defense attorney or legal assistance office.