Non-judicial punishment (NJP) — called an Article 15 in the Army, Air Force, and Space Force, Captain’s Mast in the Navy and Coast Guard, and Office Hours in the Marine Corps — is a disciplinary proceeding under Article 15, UCMJ in which your commander acts as investigator, prosecutor, and judge. It is not a criminal conviction and cannot impose confinement or a punitive discharge. Its most important feature is one many service members are never clearly told: unless you are attached to or embarked in a vessel, you have a statutory right to refuse NJP and demand trial by court-martial.
That single decision — accept or turn down — is the most consequential choice in the entire process, and it should never be made without first consulting a lawyer. Gonzalez & Waddington defend service members in NJP proceedings worldwide. Call 1-800-921-8607.
Been offered an Article 15 or notified of Captain’s Mast? Do not sign the election until you have spoken to a lawyer. Call 1-800-921-8607 or text 954-799-4019 for a confidential consultation.
Non-judicial punishment is a disciplinary tool that lets a commander punish a service member for minor offenses without a court-martial. It is authorized by Article 15, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 815, and its procedures are set out in Part V of the Manual for Courts-Martial and in each service’s implementing regulation.
The defining structural fact is that there is no neutral decision-maker. Your commander decides whether to initiate the action, reviews the evidence, hears your response, decides whether you committed the offense, and selects the punishment. There is no military judge, no panel, no rules of evidence, and no cross-examination. The commander who has already concluded there is a problem is the same person who decides whether there is a problem.
That is not a scandal — it is the design. NJP exists so that commanders can maintain discipline quickly without consuming the court-martial system with minor misconduct. The government’s own numbers show how heavily it is used: in fiscal year 2025 the Department of the Air Force recorded 3,357 nonjudicial punishments against 314 courts-martial — a rate of 10.13 per 1,000 service members. For every Airman or Guardian court-martialed, roughly eleven received NJP.
But the efficiency that makes NJP useful to commanders is exactly what makes it dangerous to the accused. It is fast, it is one-sided, and it produces a documented finding of misconduct that follows you.
| Service | What it’s called | Governing regulation |
|---|---|---|
| Army | Article 15 | AR 27-10, Chapter 3 |
| Air Force / Space Force | Article 15 | DAFI 51-202 |
| Navy | Captain’s Mast, or NJP | JAGMAN (JAGINST 5800.7), Part V |
| Marine Corps | Office Hours | JAGMAN and Marine Corps orders |
| Coast Guard | Captain’s Mast | Military Justice Manual, COMDTINST M5810.1 |
The terminology differs; the statute does not. All of it is Article 15, UCMJ, and the core rights — including the right to refuse — are the same across all six branches. Regulations are reissued frequently, so the version governing your case is the one in effect at the time.
This is the most important paragraph on this page, and it is the one the majority of service members are never given clearly.
“[E]xcept in the case of a member attached to or embarked in a vessel, punishment may not be imposed upon any member of the armed forces under this article if the member has, before the imposition of such punishment, demanded trial by court-martial in lieu of such punishment.”
— Article 15(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 815(a)
What this means. Unless you are attached to or embarked in a vessel, your commander cannot impose NJP on you over your objection. If you demand trial by court-martial, the command must either prefer charges and take you to trial or drop the matter entirely. There is no third option in which they punish you anyway.
The vessel exception. Sailors, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen attached to or embarked in a vessel do not have the refusal right. This is the single most significant service-specific difference in NJP practice, and whether you are “attached to or embarked in” a vessel is a legal question that turns on your actual status, not just your unit’s name.
Refusal is not an admission and it is not misconduct. Demanding trial by court-martial is exercising a right Congress wrote into the statute. It cannot lawfully be punished, and a command that retaliates for it has created a serious legal problem of its own.
No honest lawyer answers this question before reading the file, and any page that tells you to always accept or always refuse is giving you advice untethered from your case. Here is the framework a defense lawyer actually applies.
The variable that decides it is almost always the same: what will the command actually do if you refuse? That is a judgment about the specific command, the specific evidence, and the specific charge — which is precisely why this decision requires counsel who has seen the file, and why you should ask for an extension of your decision deadline rather than answering on the spot.
| Level | Imposed by | Typical use | Filing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summarized (Army) | Company grade commander | Minor first-time misconduct | Local file; destroyed after a set period |
| Company grade | O-3 or below in command | Most junior enlisted misconduct | Usually local for E-4 and below |
| Field grade | O-4 and above in command | More serious misconduct; NCOs | Often permanent for E-5 and above |
| General officer | General or flag officer, or GCM convening authority | Officers and senior enlisted | Typically permanent |
The level determines two things simultaneously: how much punishment can be imposed, and how likely the action is to be filed permanently. Negotiating down a level is frequently more valuable than arguing about the underlying facts, because it changes both variables at once.
The figures below reflect the standard limits for enlisted members. They vary somewhat by service and by the imposing officer’s promotion authority, and they cannot exceed what the Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes.
| Punishment | Company grade (O-3 and below) | Field grade (O-4 and above) |
|---|---|---|
| Extra duty | 14 days | 45 days |
| Restriction | 14 days | 60 days (45 if combined with extra duty) |
| Forfeiture of pay | 7 days’ basic pay | One-half of one month’s pay for 2 months |
| Reduction in grade | One grade, E-4 and below | E-4 and below to E-1; E-5 and E-6 one grade, where the imposing officer has promotion authority |
| Correctional custody | 7 days (E-3 and below) | 30 days (E-3 and below) |
| Reprimand | Oral or written | Oral or written |
For officers, NJP is imposed by a general or flag officer or a general court-martial convening authority, and the available punishments are different: a reprimand, restriction up to 60 days, arrest in quarters up to 30 days, and forfeiture of one-half of one month’s pay for two months. Officers cannot receive reduction in grade, extra duty, or correctional custody at NJP. For an officer, the real damage is almost never the punishment — it is the permanent record entry and what follows from it.
Two limits worth knowing: forfeitures are calculated on the grade you are reduced to, not your original grade, and a commander may suspend all or part of a punishment, which effectively puts you on probation for the suspension period.
Understanding the ceiling matters when you are weighing whether to refuse.
The gap between “cannot discharge you” and “will be used to discharge you” is where careers are lost.
This is widely misstated online, including in ways that understate your position.
The UCMJ does not prescribe a statutory burden of proof for NJP. Service regulations fill the gap, and they are not uniform. Army regulation directs that a commander must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the Soldier committed the offense before imposing punishment. Other services’ regulations are framed differently, and in practice commanders apply the standard with widely varying rigor.
What is uniformly true is that the procedural machinery that makes a burden of proof meaningful is absent. There are no rules of evidence, so hearsay and untested investigative summaries are considered. There is no cross-examination. There is no neutral judge ruling on what comes in. A standard of proof without those mechanisms is a state of mind, not a safeguard.
The practical implication for your defense: because there is no gatekeeping, everything you submit is considered too. NJP is one of the few proceedings where the defense can put in whatever it wants without an evidentiary objection. That cuts both ways, and a well-prepared member can use it.
The right to remain silent deserves emphasis where a criminal investigation is open or possible. Anything you say at NJP — and anything you write in your submission — is a statement that can surface later. If CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS is involved in your matter, see our guide to Article 31(b) rights and statements before you write a word.
Most service members focus entirely on the punishment — the extra duty, the lost pay, the stripe. Those end. The filing decision does not.
A locally filed Article 15 stays at the unit and is generally removed or destroyed after a set period. It does not follow you to a promotion board. A permanently filed Article 15 goes into your official military personnel file, where every future selection board, every future commander, and every security clearance adjudicator will see it.
Two service members with identical Article 15s for identical conduct can end up on completely different career trajectories based solely on where the record was filed. In the Army, filing determinations for NCOs commonly turn on whether the action was company grade or field grade. In the Air Force and Space Force, an Article 15 may be accompanied by establishment of an Unfavorable Information File and placement on the Control Roster. In the Navy and Marine Corps, the accompanying adverse evaluation or fitness report often does more long-term damage than the mast itself.
Argue filing explicitly. A submission that concedes nothing on the facts but gives the commander a well-supported reason to file locally is frequently the highest-value advocacy available in an NJP.
You may appeal to the next superior authority above the officer who imposed the punishment. The appeal is decided on a written record, and the deadline in most services is roughly five calendar days from the announcement of punishment — check your own paperwork, because the date on your form controls.
What an appeal can do: the reviewing authority may leave the punishment as imposed, mitigate it, suspend it, or set it aside entirely. What it cannot do: increase your punishment. There is no downside risk in the punishment itself.
Grounds that actually work are unjust punishment, disproportionate punishment relative to the offense and your record, procedural error, new evidence not available at the hearing, and legal insufficiency. A judge advocate review is required before certain appeals are decided.
Note the timing quirk: extra duty and restriction typically begin immediately, while reduction and forfeitures are often deferred pending the appeal. That means an appeal filed promptly can preserve your rank and pay while it is pending.
After the appeal is exhausted, further relief runs to the service Board for Correction of Military Records under 10 U.S.C. § 1552 — a slower and considerably harder path than winning at the appeal stage.
| Article 15 / NJP | Court-martial | Separation board | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Decision-maker | Your commander | Military judge and/or panel | Board of officers or officers and NCOs |
| Rules of evidence | Do not apply | Military Rules of Evidence apply | Relaxed |
| Burden | No statutory standard; service regulations vary | Beyond a reasonable doubt | Preponderance of the evidence |
| Confinement possible | No | Yes | No |
| Punitive discharge | No | Yes | Administrative characterization, including OTH |
| Federal conviction | No | Yes (special and general) | No |
| Can you refuse it? | Yes, unless attached to or embarked in a vessel | No | No, but you can contest it |
| Right to counsel | Consultation; civilian counsel permitted | Full representation | Full representation |
Usually not for the same minor offense — but the statute is narrower than most people assume:
“The imposition and enforcement of disciplinary punishment under this article for any act or omission is not a bar to trial by court-martial for a serious crime or offense growing out of the same act or omission, and not properly punishable under this article; but the fact that a disciplinary punishment has been enforced may be shown by the accused upon trial, and when so shown shall be considered in determining the measure of punishment to be adjudged in the event of a finding of guilty.”
— Article 15(f), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 815(f)
Accepting NJP for a minor offense does not immunize you from court-martial if the same conduct also constitutes a serious offense not properly punishable under Article 15. If that happens, the punishment you already served must be credited against any sentence. This matters most where a command offers NJP early while a criminal investigation is still open — accepting can look like closure while the more serious exposure remains entirely live.
Because there are no evidentiary rules, an NJP proceeding is a persuasion exercise with almost no filter — which is an advantage if you prepare for it.
Get the evidence first. Ask for the investigative file, the statements, and the exhibits, in writing, before you elect. You cannot evaluate whether to refuse without knowing what the government has.
Build a documentary record. Full text threads in context rather than the excerpts in the summary, duty logs, medical records, timelines, receipts, and statements from witnesses no one interviewed.
Bring credible character support. Letters from senior NCOs and officers who state plainly that they know what you are accused of and still vouch for you. Generic letters from people who obviously do not know the allegation are worse than none.
Lead with your record. Evaluations, awards, deployments, certifications, and the concrete cost to the unit of losing your capability — presented as evidence, not as sentiment.
Argue filing separately and explicitly. Even if the commander is not persuaded on the facts, give them a reasoned path to local filing.
Decide about speaking deliberately. A prepared statement can help. An unprepared one, or any statement while a criminal investigation is open, can be catastrophic.
We start with the election. The accept-or-refuse decision is where the case is won or lost, and it requires seeing the government’s evidence and making a realistic assessment of whether the command would actually prefer charges. We buy time to make that assessment properly.
We read the underlying file, not the summary. Investigative summaries routinely overstate what the exhibits establish, and that gap is visible to someone who has litigated these files.
We build the submission like a brief. Offense by offense, evidence by evidence, exhibits tabbed and cited, with a clear request stated up front and an alternative request on filing.
We protect against criminal exposure. Where an investigation is open, the NJP submission is drafted to persuade without conceding elements of an offense — a drafting problem most people do not know they have.
We handle the appeal and the downstream actions: the adverse evaluation, the reprimand, the clearance response, and the separation board if it comes. It is one strategic problem, and the position taken at NJP has to be consistent with the defense presented later.
Michael Waddington is a former U.S. Army JAG officer (2001–2005) who has defended court-martial and war-crimes cases worldwide. He is the author of nine books on trial advocacy and military justice, an adjunct professor at Florida International University College of Law, a Life Member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and a Fellow of the American Board of Criminal Lawyers. His experience inside the JAG Corps is directly relevant to NJP work: he knows how commands and their judge advocates assemble these packets, and what a commander is actually weighing when deciding on filing.
Alexandra González-Waddington is a founding partner with more than two decades defending service members worldwide. A graduate of Temple University Beasley School of Law and its Integrated Trial Advocacy Program and a former public defender in Georgia’s Augusta Judicial Circuit, she is the author of six books on trial advocacy and a contributing author to the American Bar Association’s The State of Criminal Justice from 2013 through 2024. Her depth in collateral consequences — clearance exposure, promotion, retention, and retirement — shapes how the firm evaluates what an Article 15 will actually cost over a full career, which is the analysis that determines how hard to fight the filing decision.
Watch the military defense lawyers at Gonzalez & Waddington explain how they defend service members worldwide against UCMJ allegations, CID, NCIS, and OSI investigations, courts-martial, Article 120 cases, administrative separations, and GOMORs.
Gonzalez & Waddington represent service members in Article 15, NJP, and Captain’s Mast proceedings worldwide — in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, and Coast Guard, at installations across the United States and overseas. See the locations we serve.
Yes, in most cases. Article 15(a), UCMJ provides that punishment may not be imposed if you demand trial by court-martial first — except for members attached to or embarked in a vessel. If you refuse, the command must either prefer charges or drop the matter.
It depends entirely on the strength of the evidence and whether your command would actually prefer charges. Refusal can end a weak case; it can also escalate a minor problem into a federal conviction with confinement and a punitive discharge exposure. Never decide without counsel reviewing the evidence first.
No. An Article 15 is not a federal criminal conviction, cannot impose confinement or a punitive discharge, and does not create a civilian criminal record. It does create a documented finding of misconduct that can carry serious career consequences.
Yes. You are entitled to consult free detailed military defense counsel before deciding whether to accept, and you may retain civilian counsel to advise you, prepare your submission, and handle the appeal and any downstream actions.
For enlisted members at a field grade Article 15: up to 45 days extra duty, 60 days restriction, forfeiture of half a month’s pay for two months, and reduction in grade. Company grade limits are 14 days extra duty, 14 days restriction, 7 days’ forfeiture, and one grade reduction for E-4 and below. Officers face reprimand, restriction, arrest in quarters, and forfeitures, but never reduction or extra duty.
Not directly — NJP cannot impose a discharge. But an Article 15 is one of the most common predicates for a bar to reenlistment, a reprimand, or an administrative separation board, where it becomes a government exhibit.
It depends on the filing decision. A locally filed action generally remains at the unit and is removed after a set period. A permanently filed action goes into your official personnel record and is seen by every future selection board and clearance adjudicator. Filing is usually the most important issue in the case.
You appeal to the next superior authority, generally within about five calendar days of the announcement of punishment. Check the deadline on your own paperwork. The reviewing authority can leave the punishment, reduce it, suspend it, or set it aside, but cannot increase it.
The UCMJ prescribes no statutory standard, and service regulations vary — Army regulation directs the commander to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. In practice the mechanisms that make a burden meaningful are absent: no rules of evidence, no cross-examination, and no neutral judge.
Captain’s Mast is the Navy and Coast Guard term for non-judicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. The Marine Corps calls it Office Hours; the Army, Air Force, and Space Force call it an Article 15. The governing statute is the same.
Article 15(a) contains an express exception for members attached to or embarked in a vessel, reflecting the practical impossibility of convening a court-martial at sea. Whether you fall within that exception is a legal question about your actual status.
Not for the same minor offense in most cases, but Article 15(f) permits court-martial for a serious offense arising from the same conduct that was not properly punishable at NJP. Any punishment already served must be credited against the sentence.
It can. Adjudicators apply the national security adjudicative guidelines on a whole-person standard, and a documented finding of misconduct raises concerns under personal conduct and related guidelines without any conviction being necessary.
Enlisted members can be. E-4 and below may be reduced, and E-5 and E-6 may be reduced one grade where the imposing officer has the corresponding promotion authority. Officers cannot be reduced in grade at NJP.
It depends, and especially so if any criminal investigation is open or possible. Article 31(b) applies and you may remain silent. A prepared statement can help; an unprepared one, or any statement that concedes elements of an offense, can be used against you later.
Yes. You may present witnesses who are reasonably available, along with documents and written statements in defense, extenuation, and mitigation. Because the rules of evidence do not apply, you can submit material that would be excluded at a court-martial.
The command must either prefer court-martial charges or take no action. Refused Article 15s are frequently referred to a summary court-martial, which by statute is a non-criminal forum and which you may also refuse.
The time stated in your notification, which is often short. You are entitled to consult counsel before electing, and extensions are commonly granted on request. Ask for one rather than deciding on the spot.
The election you make on your Article 15 paperwork — accept or demand trial — is the most consequential decision in the process, and it is generally irreversible. Do not make it on the spot, do not make it angry, and do not make it without someone reviewing the evidence.
Gonzalez & Waddington represent service members in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, and Coast Guard, worldwide, in Article 15, NJP, and Captain’s Mast proceedings and the administrative actions that follow. Call 1-800-921-8607 or text 954-799-4019 for a confidential consultation.
Sources: Article 15, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 815; Article 20, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 820; Article 31, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 831; Manual for Courts-Martial, Part V (Non-Judicial Punishment Procedure); AR 27-10, Chapter 3; DAFI 51-202; JAGINST 5800.7 (JAGMAN), Part V; COMDTINST M5810.1; 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (Correction of Military Records); Security Executive Agent Directive 4; Department of the Air Force Report on the State of Military Justice for Fiscal Year 2025 (Article 146a, UCMJ).
Disclaimer: This page is for general information and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Punishment limits, filing rules, and appeal deadlines vary by service, by the grade of the imposing commander, and by the version of the regulation in effect; the dates and limits stated in your own notification paperwork control. Whether to accept or refuse non-judicial punishment is a case-specific decision that should be made only after consulting counsel who has reviewed the evidence.
