UCMJ Article 87b: Breach of Restriction

Restriction is one of the milder forms of military restraint. It does not put a service member behind a locked door; it confines movement to defined limits, such as a barracks, a ship, or the boundaries of an installation, while the member continues most normal duties. When a member crosses those limits without authority, the conduct is breach of restriction. The Uniform Code of Military Justice addresses it in Article 87b, codified at 10 U.S.C. 887b, which covers offenses against correctional custody and restriction. The breach-of-restriction offense was relocated from the Article 134 general article into Article 87b by the Military Justice Act of 2016, effective 1 January 2019.

What makes restriction distinctive is that it operates as a moral restraint rather than a physical one. No bars or guards keep the member in place. The limits hold because the member has been lawfully ordered to honor them. Breaking them is therefore treated as a disobedience of imposed boundaries, and the offense exists to ensure that even this lighter form of restraint carries real consequence.

The elements the government must prove

To establish breach of restriction, the prosecution generally must prove:

  1. That the accused was ordered into restriction by a person authorized to impose it.
  2. That the accused knew of the restriction and its limits.
  3. That the accused went beyond the limits of the restriction before being released or relieved by proper authority.
  4. That the going beyond the limits was wrongful.

The order must come from competent authority, and the limits must be defined. The accused must have known what those limits were. And the accused must have crossed them before being properly released.

The accused must know the limits

Knowledge is a built-in element of this offense. Because restriction depends on the member’s awareness of the boundaries, the government must prove the accused knew of the restriction and understood its limits. A member who was never properly informed of the restriction, or of where its limits lay, cannot be convicted of knowingly breaching it. This is why how the restriction was imposed and communicated often becomes a key issue. Clear notice from competent authority is what gives the boundaries their binding force.

Maximum punishment

Breach of restriction carries a modest maximum under the Manual for Courts-Martial: confinement for 1 month and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 1 month. The relatively light ceiling reflects that restriction is a lesser restraint than correctional custody or confinement. Even so, a conviction is a federal military conviction with lasting consequences for a service record. For offenses committed on or after 27 December 2023, the revised sentencing procedures of the Military Justice Act apply.

It is worth noting that Article 87b also covers two more serious related offenses with higher maximums: escape from correctional custody and breach of correctional custody. Breach of restriction is the least severe of the three.

Common defenses

Defenses typically focus on authority, knowledge, and justification:

  • Improper restriction: the restriction was not lawfully imposed by competent authority, so there was nothing valid to breach.
  • Lack of knowledge: the accused did not know of the restriction or its limits.
  • Mistake of fact: the accused reasonably believed the restriction had ended or that the conduct was within the limits.
  • Necessity or emergency: leaving the limits to prevent serious harm or to obtain urgent care, where there was no reasonable opportunity to seek permission, may render the departure not wrongful.

How breach of restriction differs from neighboring offenses

The most common comparison is with absence without leave under Article 86 (10 U.S.C. 886). The two are related but distinct. Breach of restriction punishes going beyond imposed boundaries while the member otherwise remains accountable to the command. Absence without leave punishes unauthorized absence from a place of duty. A single departure can sometimes involve both, for example when leaving the limits of restriction also amounts to absence from a required place of duty, and prosecutors decide what to charge based on the facts.

Breach of restriction is also lighter than the correctional-custody offenses within the same article and far less serious than escape from confinement. Restriction is a limit on movement; confinement and correctional custody involve actual physical restraint, and breaking out of them is treated accordingly.

Frequently asked questions

How is breach of restriction different from being absent without leave?
Breach of restriction punishes crossing the limits set by a restriction order. Absence without leave punishes unauthorized absence from a place of duty. They protect different interests, and both can sometimes arise from the same conduct.

Does the accused have to know about the restriction?
Yes. Knowledge of the restriction and its limits is an element. If the member was never properly informed, the offense cannot be proven.

What if the restriction was unlawful?
If the restriction was not imposed by competent authority or otherwise was not lawful, there was no valid restriction to breach, and that can defeat the charge.

Does it matter that the accused left only briefly?
No, as to guilt. Even a brief departure beyond the limits can constitute the offense. The duration may affect the sentence but does not, by itself, eliminate liability.

Can an emergency justify leaving?
Possibly. Leaving the limits to address a genuine emergency, with no reasonable chance to obtain permission, may make the departure not wrongful. Courts weigh the reasonableness of the action under the circumstances.

This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It describes military law and procedure of public record, does not address any individual case, and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Sources

  • 10 U.S.C. 887b, Article 87b, Offenses against correctional custody and restriction: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/887b
  • 10 U.S.C. 886, Article 86, Absence without leave: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/886
  • Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 edition), Part IV: https://jsc.defense.gov/Military-Law/Current-Publications-and-Updates/
  • Military Attorney Joseph L. Jordan, Articles of the UCMJ

Related:

  1. UCMJ Article 95: Offenses by a Sentinel or Lookout A sentinel or lookout stands as a unit's first line of warning. Whether posted at a gate, a magazine, a perimeter, or the rail of a ship, that person is......
  2. UCMJ Article 88: Contempt Toward Officials The Constitution places the armed forces under civilian control, and military law reinforces that principle by limiting how commissioned officers may speak about the civilian leaders above them. Article 88......
  3. UCMJ Article 126: Arson Fire is uniquely dangerous because it does not stay where it is set. A blaze meant for one structure can spread to others, trap occupants, and destroy resources a unit......
  4. UCMJ Article 131c: Misprision of a Serious Offense A service member who learns that someone has committed a serious crime, and then takes steps to hide it, can be prosecuted under Article 131c of the Uniform Code of......
  5. UCMJ Article 129: Burglary For most of its history, burglary in military law carried the old common-law trappings: it had to involve a dwelling house, and it had to happen at night. That is......
  6. UCMJ Article 109a: Mail Matter: Wrongful Taking or Opening For deployed service members and their families, the mail is often a lifeline. A unit mailroom may hold birthday packages, official correspondence, prescription medications, and letters that carry real weight......
  7. UCMJ Article 114: Reckless Endangerment A round fired into the air over a crowded area, a vehicle driven at reckless speed through a busy installation, explosives handled with deliberate disregard for safety rules: each creates......
  8. UCMJ Article 89: Disrespect Toward or Assault of a Superior Commissioned Officer The relationship between a service member and a superior commissioned officer rests on a baseline of respect and physical safety. Article 89 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice protects......
  9. UCMJ Article 103: Spies Among the offenses in military law, few carry the gravity of spying in wartime. A person who infiltrates a military area under false colors to gather intelligence for an enemy......
  10. UCMJ Article 123a: Making, Drawing, or Uttering a Check Without Sufficient Funds A bounced check is usually a banking problem. It becomes a criminal one when the person who wrote it knew the account could not cover it and used it to......
  11. UCMJ Article 91: Insubordinate Conduct Toward a Warrant, Noncommissioned, or Petty Officer The day-to-day work of a military unit is often directed not by commissioned officers but by warrant officers, noncommissioned officers (NCOs), and petty officers. These leaders supervise training, enforce standards,......
  12. UCMJ Article 105: Forgery Military operations run on paper and its electronic equivalents: leave forms, pay vouchers, contracts, orders, identification cards. When someone falsifies a signature or alters a document so it appears to......
  13. UCMJ Article 131g: Wrongful Interference With an Adverse Administrative Proceeding Not every consequential proceeding in the military is a court-martial. Separation boards, boards of inquiry, administrative reduction actions, and similar processes can end a career, strip a security clearance, or......
  14. UCMJ Article 129: Unlawful Entry Walking into another unit's barracks without permission, slipping into a restricted storage area to look around, or entering a building with no authority and no invitation can expose a service......
  15. UCMJ Article 115: Communicating a Threat or Hoax to Cause Panic A false bomb threat phoned in to dodge a duty shift, a fabricated warning of a chemical spill spread for amusement, a fake report of an attack designed to send......