Table Contents
Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP), authorized under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, is a disciplinary process commanders may use to address minor misconduct without initiating a court-martial. In the Navy and Marine Corps, this process is commonly called “Captain’s Mast” or simply “Mast,” while the Army and Air Force typically refer to it as an Article 15 proceeding.
NJP differs from a court-martial in that it is an administrative action rather than a judicial one. It does not involve a military judge, formal rules of evidence, or the full range of rights and procedures associated with criminal trials. Instead, the commander determines whether an offense occurred and imposes authorized sanctions designed to correct behavior and maintain good order and discipline.
Although NJP is not a criminal conviction, the action becomes part of a service member’s official military record. Documentation of the misconduct, the proceedings, and any imposed punishment is preserved within personnel files, which follow the member throughout their career and may be referenced during evaluations, promotions, and administrative reviews.
At Fort Riley, Non-Judicial Punishment (Article 15, NJP, or Mast) is a formal legal process—not minor discipline—that can affect a service member’s rank, pay, and long‑term career. Gonzalez & Waddington provide guidance on NJP procedures and rights. For information, call 1-800-921-8607.
Watch the criminal defense lawyers at Gonzalez & Waddington break down how they defend criminal cases and service members worldwide against Federal Charges, Florida State Charges, UCMJ allegations, CID/NCIS/OSI investigations, court-martials, Article 120 cases, administrative separations, and GOMORs. If you’re under investigation or facing charges, this video explains what your rights are and how experienced criminal defense lawyers can make the difference.
At Fort Riley, non‑judicial punishment is not treated as minor discipline because commanders have substantial discretion in deciding whether alleged conduct requires formal action, and the visibility of these decisions within the chain of command reinforces the seriousness of the process.
NJP can also influence a soldier’s professional trajectory by affecting promotion potential, evaluation outcomes, and assignment opportunities, making its impact far greater than that of routine corrective measures.
Additionally, NJP may result in further administrative steps such as counseling, documented performance reviews, or other rehabilitative efforts, and when patterns emerge, it can contribute to broader administrative considerations, underscoring why it is not viewed as a minor event.
If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges or a criminal investigation by federal authorities, the military, or the State of Florida, early defense matters. Gonzalez & Waddington provide disciplined, trial-focused criminal defense for high-stakes cases involving serious allegations and complex evidence. To speak with experienced criminal defense lawyers and get confidential guidance, call 1-800-921-8607 or text 954-909-7407 to request a no-cost, confidential consultation.
The Non-Judicial Punishment process at Fort Riley follows established military procedures that outline how allegations are reviewed and addressed by a commander. Each step is designed to document the circumstances and ensure the member is informed of the basis for the action.
The sequence below reflects the typical flow of events from the initial report through the official recording of the outcome, highlighting how the installation administers the process.
Service members at Fort Riley may face administrative discipline when they do not follow established orders or policies, such as missed formations, improper handling of equipment, or other lapses involving required procedures. These situations are addressed through Non‑Judicial Punishment as a way to correct performance rather than to determine criminal guilt.
Alcohol‑related incidents can also result in NJP proceedings when a soldier’s actions indicate a need for corrective guidance. This may include situations where alcohol use affects readiness, judgment, or adherence to installation standards, prompting leadership to take administrative action.
General conduct and performance issues, such as repeated tardiness, interpersonal conflicts, or failure to maintain expected professional standards, are additional circumstances where commanders may use NJP to reinforce good order and discipline without pursuing criminal charges.
Non‑Judicial Punishment proceedings at Fort Riley often rely on statements and reports generated during the initial incident review, including written accounts from involved personnel and official documentation created in the ordinary course of military duties.
Investigative summaries, whether produced by law enforcement or unit-level inquiries, are frequently included to outline the key facts gathered, timelines established, and materials collected during the preliminary examination of the alleged misconduct.
Witness accounts, both sworn and unsworn, may be presented to clarify events or corroborate details, and commanders retain broad discretion in determining the relevance, credibility, and weight of all evidence considered in the NJP process.
At Fort Riley, a Non‑Judicial Punishment (NJP) under Article 15 can prompt commanders to issue additional adverse paperwork, including letters of reprimand that may be filed locally or in a permanent record. These documents can influence future decisions about a soldier’s suitability for continued service.
NJP findings may also trigger administrative separation processing when the underlying misconduct causes a commander to question a soldier’s reliability, discipline, or potential for future performance. Although each case is reviewed individually, the initiation of separation is a recognized possibility following certain NJP outcomes.
For soldiers in higher grades or those with complex circumstances, an NJP can increase the likelihood of being referred to a Board of Inquiry (BOI). A BOI evaluates whether retention is appropriate and may consider the NJP, supporting evidence, and the soldier’s overall service record.
The presence of NJP‑related actions—such as reprimands, separation consideration, or BOI review—can carry long‑term career consequences, including negative effects on promotions, assignments, or reenlistment opportunities. These outcomes depend on the full context of the soldier’s service and command assessments.
At Fort Riley, Non‑Judicial Punishment (NJP) often follows or accompanies command-directed investigations, which are used to determine underlying facts before a commander decides whether NJP is appropriate. These investigations help establish a factual basis without immediately resorting to more severe legal proceedings.
NJP can also be issued alongside or as an alternative to administrative measures such as Letters of Reprimand, which may be placed locally or in an official file. In some cases, repeated misconduct or more serious concerns revealed during NJP proceedings can trigger a Boards of Inquiry review to evaluate a service member’s suitability for continued service.
When the alleged misconduct is too serious for NJP or when a soldier demands trial by court-martial instead of accepting NJP, the matter may proceed toward court-martial escalation. This progression underscores how NJP fits into a broader continuum of military justice actions at Fort Riley, balancing administrative and punitive responses depending on the severity of the conduct.
When soldiers at Fort Riley encounter Non‑Judicial Punishment actions, they often seek counsel with extensive administrative defense experience. Gonzalez & Waddington have spent decades navigating the complexities of military justice procedures, helping service members understand the NJP process and the administrative consequences that can follow.
The firm’s background includes handling cases where NJP proceedings intersect with potential separation actions, making their insight valuable for soldiers who must consider how an Article 15 may influence a broader administrative record. Their understanding of how commanders interpret NJP findings allows them to guide clients in preparing for both immediate and downstream implications.
They also assist service members in developing a strong record for mitigation and presenting facts that accurately reflect their service history. Through focused advocacy and informed preparation, they help clients address allegations while ensuring the official record includes the context necessary for any future administrative reviews.
Answer: NJP is not classified as a criminal conviction under military law. It is an administrative action under Article 15 of the UCMJ. While not criminal, it can still affect a service member’s military record.
Answer: NJP is handled by a commander and does not involve a formal judicial process. A court-martial is a criminal proceeding with prosecutors, defense counsel, and a military judge. The potential consequences at a court-martial are typically more severe.
Answer: NJP can include reductions in rank or forfeiture of pay depending on the commander’s authority. These impacts vary based on the grade of the commander administering the NJP. The effects are documented in the service member’s personnel records.
Answer: An NJP entry may be reviewed during promotion board evaluations. Boards can consider the circumstances surrounding the NJP as part of a service member’s overall record. This review may influence how the board assesses a candidate’s suitability for advancement.
Answer: NJP itself is an administrative action but may be considered in a broader pattern of conduct. Commanders can review prior NJP when evaluating a service member’s suitability for continued service. Separation decisions are made through separate administrative processes.
Answer: Whether NJP remains permanently depends on how it is filed and the service member’s branch policies. Some filings are placed in restricted sections of a personnel file, while others remain in the performance section. These records can influence future reviews or assignments.
Answer: Service members may seek guidance from a civilian attorney if they choose. Civilian lawyers are not provided by the military but can review documents and explain the NJP process. The service member remains responsible for notifying their command of any representation they obtain.
Fort Riley sits in north‑central Kansas between Junction City and Manhattan, positioned along the Flint Hills’ rolling terrain. The region’s tallgrass prairie and seasonal climate shape training conditions throughout the year. Its placement along major highways supports steady interaction with surrounding civilian communities.
The installation is closely tied to Junction City’s commercial areas and Manhattan’s university‑driven economy. Local infrastructure, schools, and services regularly support military families stationed on or near the post. This regional integration helps sustain a stable environment for long‑term operations.
Fort Riley is primarily an Army installation known for hosting armored, mechanized, and support elements. Its mission centers on preparing combat‑ready forces for global contingencies through sustained training cycles. The base also supports tenant commands that enhance mobility, intelligence, and sustainment capabilities.
The installation is home to the 1st Infantry Division, a formation with a long operational history and frequent training commitments. Additional aviation, logistics, and communications units complement the division’s requirements. Their combined presence reinforces the post’s role as a key Midwest power‑projection hub.
Fort Riley hosts a substantial active‑duty force supported by civilian employees and dependents. Its units maintain continuous training cycles across ranges and maneuver areas that mirror modern combat demands. The installation also supports rotational forces preparing for overseas missions.
Armored and mechanized training events dominate the landscape, supported by aviation, medical, and sustainment functions. The tempo includes field exercises, gunnery, and large‑scale coordination with partner units. This operational rhythm influences daily life for service members and families.
The post’s high training tempo and deployment cycles naturally involve UCMJ‑related matters such as investigations, administrative actions, and courts‑martial. Commanders rely on established procedures to handle incidents arising from operational demands. These processes affect both permanent personnel and transient units.
The military defense lawyers at Gonzalez & Waddington represent servicemembers stationed at or passing through Fort Riley. Their work spans cases connected to the post’s training environment and mission requirements. This support extends to those navigating complex military justice proceedings.
Accepting NJP is not a formal admission of guilt under criminal law, but it may be treated as adverse information in administrative and career decisions. How it appears in the record often matters more than intent.
Yes, NJP is frequently cited as a basis for administrative separation or a Board of Inquiry. It can establish a pattern of misconduct even without criminal charges.
NJP is commonly used for minor misconduct, orders violations, duty performance issues, and behavior that a commander believes does not require a court-martial. The definition of “minor” is largely discretionary.
NJP is not a criminal conviction, but it is adverse administrative action that can carry serious career consequences. It can still be used against a service member in later proceedings.
Non-Judicial Punishment is an administrative disciplinary process that allows commanders to address alleged misconduct without a court-martial. It is governed by Article 15 of the UCMJ or equivalent service regulations.
