UCMJ Article 87 – Missing Movement

UCMJ Article 87 criminalizes the act of missing the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which a service member is required to move. Unlike AWOL or desertion, Article 87 applies specifically to situations where a movement has been officially scheduled, and the accused fails to join it either through neglect or design. This provision reflects the military’s need for strict adherence to orders and schedules to ensure mission success.

Missing movement is treated very seriously because it can jeopardize entire operations. Whether intentional or through neglect, failing to report to a scheduled deployment or unit movement undermines discipline, operational readiness, and the safety of others. The military justice system therefore punishes the offense with substantial penalties, especially when the absence is deliberate.

Key Elements

To prove missing movement under Article 87, the prosecution must show:

  1. That the accused was required to move with a ship, aircraft, or unit.
  2. That the accused knew of the prospective movement.
  3. That the accused missed the movement.
  4. That the accused missed the movement either through neglect or design.

Intent is not always necessary. Neglect—such as oversleeping or failing to plan transportation—can be sufficient. However, deliberate action to avoid the movement is punished more severely.

Scope and Application

Article 87 applies when a service member fails to report to a scheduled deployment, embarkation, or unit transfer. Examples include missing a troop transport flight, failing to board a ship, or not reporting for convoy movement.

It differs from AWOL because the charge is tied specifically to a scheduled movement. A person might not be absent from their unit in general but still be guilty of missing the movement if they fail to be present for the scheduled departure.

Punishment

The severity of punishment depends on whether the movement was missed through neglect or design.

  • Through neglect: confinement for up to 1 year, forfeiture of pay, and bad-conduct discharge.
  • Through design (intentional): confinement for up to 2 years, forfeiture of pay, and dishonorable discharge.

If the movement is in time of war or involves combat deployment, punishment can be even harsher because of the increased risk and operational impact.

Defenses

Possible defenses include:

  • Lack of knowledge: If the accused did not know of the scheduled movement, liability cannot attach.
  • Impossibility: If circumstances beyond control, such as hospitalization or detention, prevented attendance, the absence is not voluntary.
  • Improper scheduling or notice: If the orders were defective or unclear, missing the movement may not qualify as an offense.

The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew of the movement and had the ability to attend.

Examples

An airman who oversleeps and misses the flight carrying their unit overseas may be guilty of missing movement through neglect. A sailor who deliberately avoids boarding a ship to evade deployment is guilty of missing movement through design. A soldier stuck in traffic but who made reasonable efforts to arrive on time may raise a defense if the absence was not voluntary.

Conclusion

UCMJ Article 87 punishes service members who fail to join their assigned ship, aircraft, or unit at the scheduled time of departure. The law ensures accountability for strict timetables critical to military readiness. By distinguishing between neglect and deliberate design, the article balances fairness with deterrence, recognizing that both negligence and intent can disrupt missions but that intentional absence is more severe.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is the difference between AWOL and missing movement?
AWOL involves unauthorized absence from duty in general, while missing movement applies to failing to join a specific scheduled departure. Missing movement is narrower but often punished more harshly because of the direct operational impact.

2. Can missing movement be charged if the absence was accidental?
Yes, missing movement through neglect is still punishable. While less serious than deliberate avoidance, even negligent absence undermines readiness. The law ensures accountability regardless of intent.

3. How is punishment different for neglect versus design?
Missing movement through neglect carries up to 1 year of confinement and a bad-conduct discharge. Through design, it carries up to 2 years of confinement and a dishonorable discharge. Intent makes the difference.

4. What if I did not know about the scheduled movement?
Knowledge is a required element. If you were never informed or the orders were defective, then missing movement cannot be proven. The prosecution must show actual or constructive knowledge.

5. Can unavoidable circumstances be a defense?
Yes, circumstances beyond your control such as hospitalization, accidents, or detention may excuse the absence. Courts evaluate whether the absence was voluntary or unavoidable.

6. Does voluntary return help reduce punishment?
Yes, returning voluntarily after missing movement may mitigate punishment. Courts look more favorably on those who make efforts to rejoin compared to those apprehended. However, the offense is still complete once the movement is missed.

7. Are punishments harsher in wartime?
Yes, missing movement connected to combat deployment or wartime operations is punished more severely. The impact on readiness and safety is far greater in those contexts.

8. What kinds of movements are covered under Article 87?
Movements include ships, aircraft, or unit departures formally scheduled as part of duty. This can include overseas deployment, training exercises, or permanent change of station movements.

9. Can missing movement be charged together with AWOL?
Yes, a person may be charged with both if they missed a movement and then remained absent without authority. Prosecutors choose charges based on facts and intent.

10. Why is missing movement considered so serious?
Because military operations depend on precision and timing. Missing even one member can compromise readiness, delay missions, or endanger lives. The rule deters carelessness and intentional avoidance alike.

Sources

  • Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 887, Article 87
  • Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 edition)
  • Army Regulation 27-10, Military Justice
  • Navy JAGMAN (Judge Advocate General’s Manual) § 0114
  • Air Force Instruction 51-201, Administration of Military Justice
  • Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, United States v. Jones, 68 M.J. 465 (2010)
  • Military Attorney Joseph L. Jordan, Articles of the UCMJ web page

This content is for informational purposes only. If you are facing issues related to Article 87 or any other UCMJ provision, you should consult a qualified military attorney.

Related:

  1. UCMJ Article 84 – Effecting Unlawful Enlistment, Appointment, or Separation UCMJ Article 84 punishes service members who knowingly participate in or assist with unlawful enlistments, appointments, or separations within the armed forces. The provision targets those who, by intent or deception, manipulate the system of entering or leaving military service....
  2. UCMJ Article 134 – Stolen Property: Knowingly Receiving, Buying, or Concealing This enumerated offense under Article 134 punishes service members who knowingly receive, buy, or conceal stolen property. The misconduct is distinct from larceny under Article 121, which covers the actual theft. Here, the offense targets those who benefit from or...
  3. UCMJ Article 134 – Reckless Endangerment This enumerated offense under Article 134 punishes service members who engage in conduct that recklessly or wantonly creates a substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm to another person. Unlike negligent acts, reckless endangerment requires proof that the accused...
  4. UCMJ Article 109 – Waste, Destruction, or Spoilage of Non-Military Property UCMJ Article 109 punishes service members who willfully or recklessly waste, destroy, or damage property that does not belong to the United States military. Unlike Article 108, which deals with U.S. government property, Article 109 applies when the property is...
  5. UCMJ Article 99 – Misbehavior Before the Enemy UCMJ Article 99 criminalizes acts of cowardice, misbehavior, or misconduct committed in the presence of the enemy. It is one of the most severe offenses in military law because it deals directly with conduct in combat situations where unit cohesion,...
  6. UCMJ Article 95 – Resistance, Flight, Breach of Arrest, and Escape UCMJ Article 95 punishes service members who resist apprehension, attempt to flee from custody, break arrest, or escape from confinement. The provision ensures that military law enforcement and command authority can maintain control over personnel subject to investigation, arrest, or...
  7. UCMJ Article 134 – Drunkenness (Disorderly Conduct) Under Article 134 of the UCMJ, drunkenness and disorderly conduct are punishable when they are prejudicial to good order and discipline or bring discredit upon the armed forces. Military service demands sobriety, professionalism, and reliability, and drunken behavior that disrupts...
  8. UCMJ Article 98 – Noncompliance with Procedural Rules UCMJ Article 98 punishes officials who knowingly or willfully fail to comply with procedural rules in the administration of military justice. It applies to commanders, military judges, convening authorities, trial counsel, and others responsible for courts-martial proceedings. The article is...
  9. UCMJ Article 134 – Public Record: Altering, Concealing, Removing, Mutilating, Obliterating, or Destroying This enumerated offense under Article 134 punishes service members who wrongfully alter, conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate, or destroy a public record. Public records include any official document, paper, file, or electronic record maintained by military or government authority. Because the...
  10. UCMJ Article 111 – Drunken or Reckless Operation of Vehicle, Aircraft, or Vessel UCMJ Article 111 punishes service members who operate a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel in a drunken or reckless manner. The article is designed to protect service members, military property, and the public from the dangers of impaired or reckless operation....
  11. UCMJ Article 134 – Indecent Language Under Article 134, service members can be punished for using indecent language when such conduct is prejudicial to good order and discipline or brings discredit upon the armed forces. Indecent language means words or expressions that are grossly offensive to...
  12. UCMJ Article 134 – Wearing Unauthorized Insignia, Decoration, Badge, Ribbon, Device, or Lapel Button This enumerated offense under Article 134 punishes service members who wrongfully wear military insignia, decorations, ribbons, badges, devices, or lapel buttons that they are not authorized to wear. The military takes this misconduct seriously because unauthorized wear undermines the integrity...
  13. UCMJ Article 129 – Burglary UCMJ Article 129 criminalizes burglary, which is unlawfully breaking and entering the dwelling house of another in the nighttime with the intent to commit a criminal offense inside. Burglary is considered more serious than unlawful entry because it combines trespass...
  14. UCMJ Article 134 – Seizure: Destruction, Removal, or Disposal of Property to Prevent This enumerated offense under Article 134 punishes service members who destroy, remove, or otherwise dispose of property in order to prevent it from being lawfully seized. The offense is closely tied to maintaining integrity in investigations, inspections, and lawful authority....
  15. UCMJ Article 80 – Attempts UCMJ Article 80 establishes liability for attempts to commit offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It punishes service members who, with the specific intent to commit an offense, take a substantial step toward its commission, even if the...