Table Content
Article 110 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice establishes criminal liability for conduct that endangers, or is reasonably likely to endanger, the safety of a vessel or aircraft under military control. The offense covers both intentional and negligent acts, depending on the manner of the misconduct. The statute protects the operational integrity of military transportation assets and the safety of personnel aboard them.
The article criminalizes actions that wrongfully and unlawfully place a vessel or aircraft in danger of loss, destruction, or serious damage. It applies whether the hazard results from direct acts, omissions, or violations of operational standards or regulations. The conduct may occur during navigation, operation, maintenance, or other activities affecting the vessel or aircraft’s safety.
Examples of prohibited conduct include:
Article 110 applies to all persons subject to the UCMJ, including service members and, in limited circumstances, others who fall under military jurisdiction. Liability extends to operators, commanders, crew members, and individuals whose conduct materially affects the vessel or aircraft’s safety.
The statute differentiates between willful and negligent hazarding. Willful hazarding requires intentional or knowing misconduct that creates the prohibited danger. Negligent hazarding applies when the accused’s conduct reflects a culpable departure from the standard of care expected under the circumstances.
Attempt and conspiracy charges may apply when the accused takes substantial steps toward, or agrees to participate in, conduct that would violate Article 110. Accomplice liability is available when a person aids, abets, or encourages the hazardous conduct of another. These theories are evaluated under general UCMJ principles governing inchoate and derivative offenses.
The government must prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt before an accused may be found guilty under Article 110. Each element defines a specific fact or legal requirement that establishes the prohibited conduct and the accused’s culpability.
Article 110 recognizes two mental states: willfulness and negligence. Willfulness requires that the accused intentionally performed the act that created the hazard, knowing that it could endanger the vessel or aircraft. Negligence requires a deviation from the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances, resulting in the creation of the hazard.
The actus reus is the wrongful creation of danger to a military vessel or aircraft, whether by direct action, misuse of authority, or failure to exercise required duties. The hazard must be more than theoretical; it must constitute a real and substantial danger to the craft or its operation.
“Vessel” and “aircraft” refer to military craft under the control or jurisdiction of the armed forces. “Hazard” denotes exposure to risk of harm, damage, or loss affecting the safety or functioning of the craft.
Punishment under Article 110, UCMJ, depends on the date of the alleged offense. Offenses committed before December 27, 2023, are sentenced under the legacy “maximum punishment” system, while offenses committed on or after that date fall under the sentencing_category framework established by the Military Justice Act of 2023.
Under the pre_December 27, 2023 system, Article 110 distinguished between willful and negligent misconduct involving the improper hazarding of a vessel or aircraft.
For offenses committed on or after December 27, 2023, Article 110 falls within the standardized sentencing_category structure. Willful hazarding of a vessel or aircraft is assigned to Category 1, and negligent hazarding is assigned to Category 3.
Under the sentencing_category model, offenses are grouped into standardized categories with predetermined confinement ranges and available punitive discharges. This differs from the prior system, which assigned each offense a unique maximum punishment. The category system is designed to create uniformity and proportionality across offenses by aligning them with structured sentencing ranges rather than individualized maximums.
Charging decisions under Article 110 generally stem from specific fact patterns that raise concerns about the safety of military vessels or aircraft. These decisions are shaped by the results of initial command inquiries, the technical findings of investigators, and command discretion regarding the severity and context of the conduct.
Most real-world Article 110 cases arise from operational or maintenance-related decisions that create measurable risk to a vessel or aircraft. Typical scenarios include:
Article 110 charges frequently appear alongside other UCMJ articles when the same incident involves broader misconduct. Common companion charges include:
These cases typically originate with immediate command notifications following an incident, near_miss, or safety report. Commands often initiate preliminary inquiries or command-directed investigations to determine whether the event potentially meets the Article 110 standard. Depending on severity, specialized investigative agencies—NCIS for Navy and Marine Corps, CID for Army, OSI for Air Force and Space Force, and CGIS for Coast Guard—may become involved, especially when material damage, injury, or suspected misconduct is present. Technical investigators, such as safety boards or maintenance experts, frequently contribute findings that clarify the level of risk created.
Prosecutors often employ charge-stacking or alternative charging frameworks when a single act may violate multiple safety-related statutes. Article 110 commonly overlaps with Articles 92 and 108, allowing commands to present different legal theories based on the same conduct. Charging decisions reflect the degree of demonstrated risk, the extent of crew or passenger exposure, and the presence of related administrative or procedural violations.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 110 often turn on the government’s ability to establish each statutory element, along with the reliability of witness accounts, the admissibility of evidence, and the interpretation of the article’s language. Litigation in these cases frequently centers on how the facts align with the statutory framework and the quality of the supporting proof.
Contested issues commonly arise regarding whether the conduct actually created, or was reasonably likely to create, the type of hazard contemplated by Article 110. Disputes may focus on technical conditions of the vessel or aircraft, operational requirements, or whether the alleged act or omission meets the threshold of “improper” or “wrongful” under the statute. Cases often involve expert testimony on navigation, maintenance, safety, or command procedures, which may influence whether the factfinder concludes that the essential elements have been satisfied. Challenges may also address causation, particularly when multiple factors contributed to the alleged hazard.
The mental state required for Article 110 offenses is frequently a focal point of litigation. Questions may arise regarding whether the accused acted intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently. The government’s burden to prove the requisite mens rea often depends on circumstantial evidence, operational logs, orders, or communications. Disputes can concern whether the accused appreciated the risk being created, whether the conduct deviated from expected standards, and how the applicable mens rea standard should be interpreted in relation to military operations.
Credibility assessments play a significant role in cases involving contested operational decisions or disputes about sequences of events. Conflicting statements from crew members, maintenance personnel, or observers may arise, particularly when the alleged hazard occurred rapidly or under stressful conditions. Factfinders may weigh consistency of accounts, perception limits, and potential bias, without these issues resolving clearly in one direction.
Evidence disputes frequently involve the admissibility of statements made during safety investigations, command inquiries, or operational debriefings. Questions may also arise about searches of digital devices, preservation of electronic navigation data, or chain of custody for technical records. Suppression motions can concern compliance with rights advisements, scope of inspections, or the manner in which digital or mechanical data was retrieved.
Litigation may address the meaning of terms such as “hazard,” “vessel,” “aircraft,” or “wrongful,” as well as how Article 110 interacts with other UCMJ provisions. Ambiguities in definitions or operational terminology can lead to disputes over legislative intent, applicability to specific platforms, or the threshold conduct necessary to trigger liability.
Article 111 offenses involving negligent or dangerous operation of vehicles
Reckless endangerment provisions that may relate to unsafe operational actions
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may arise separately from any punitive measures imposed by a court-martial. These outcomes are typically governed by military regulations, federal policies, or applicable civilian laws and may continue to influence a service member’s career or personal circumstances after the completion of the court-martial process.
A conviction under UCMJ Article 110, which involves improper hazarding of a vessel or aircraft, may prompt administrative reviews regarding a service member’s continued suitability for military service. Potential outcomes can include administrative separation or adverse discharge characterization. Even if the member is retained, the conviction may affect eligibility for promotion, specialized assignments, and future reenlistment. For members nearing retirement, the conviction could influence retirement grade determinations or raise questions regarding continued qualification for military retirement benefits.
Misconduct involving the unsafe operation or endangerment of military equipment may lead to security clearance reconsideration. Clearance adjudicators may evaluate the incident for concerns related to judgment, reliability, or adherence to safety and operational standards. Loss or suspension of a clearance can affect current duties and may limit access to certain military or civilian positions requiring clearance eligibility after service.
Convictions under Article 110 generally do not trigger sex offender registration or similar reporting obligations. However, any reporting requirements that might apply are governed by federal and state law and depend on the specific conduct underlying the conviction, not solely the article of offense.
The conduct leading to an Article 110 conviction may also fall within federal or state jurisdiction if it involves property damage, environmental harm, or violations of civilian aviation or maritime laws. This could result in separate investigations or civil claims independent of military proceedings.
For non-citizens, certain military convictions may affect immigration status, admissibility, or future naturalization applications. The impact generally depends on the specific facts and how the offense is classified under immigration law rather than its designation under the UCMJ.
During investigations under UCMJ Article 110, decisions made at the outset often influence how facts are interpreted and can shape the case long before formal charges are considered. Early legal guidance helps ensure that actions taken during this phase do not unintentionally narrow options later in the process.
Military investigators typically gather statements, logs, maintenance records, and digital data in the first stages of an inquiry. Early legal involvement can help ensure that a service member’s statements are accurately documented, that evidence is properly preserved, and that ambiguous material is not interpreted without context. Attorneys, including civilian military defense lawyers, can advise on how to navigate requests for information during these early steps.
Interviews with command representatives, safety officers, or law-enforcement personnel may occur before a service member fully understands the nature of the investigation. Without guidance, individuals may provide statements or explanations that later become central to the case, even if made without full awareness of the allegations or investigative scope.
Administrative or command-directed investigations can run parallel to or independent of potential criminal proceedings. Early findings in these processes may be incorporated into later legal actions, making initial responses and documentation significant even before any criminal action is initiated.
Choices made in the initial phase—such as consenting to searches or providing written statements—can have lasting implications throughout court-martial or administrative proceedings. These early actions may influence charging decisions, evidentiary assessments, and overall case direction.
Gonzalez & Waddington is a civilian military defense law firm that represents service members worldwide in cases arising under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The firm focuses on complex military criminal matters, providing guidance and defense to clients facing courts-martial, administrative actions, and investigative processes across all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces.
If you are facing allegations connected to UCMJ Article 110 or have concerns about an ongoing military investigation, you may contact Gonzalez & Waddington to discuss your situation. A consultation can help you better understand the process and the options available for responding to the allegations.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 110: Improper Hazarding of Vessel or Aircraft cover?
A: Article 110 addresses conduct that unnecessarily endangers a military vessel or aircraft, whether through intentional actions, gross negligence, or willful misconduct. The article applies when the accused’s behavior creates a substantial risk to the safety, operability, or mission readiness of the craft. It covers a wide range of scenarios, including unsafe navigation, unauthorized maneuvers, improper maintenance actions, or any conduct that foreseeably exposes the vessel or aircraft to harm.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 110: Improper Hazarding of Vessel or Aircraft?
A: The maximum punishment depends on whether the act was intentional or the result of negligence. Intentional misconduct can carry significantly higher penalties, including a lengthy term of confinement and a punitive discharge. Negligent hazarding generally carries lower maximum penalties but still may involve confinement, reduction in rank, forfeitures, or a discharge. The specific sentence is determined by the court-martial and the circumstances surrounding the alleged conduct.
Q: Can an allegation under this article lead to administrative separation even without a conviction?
A: Yes. Commanders may initiate administrative separation proceedings based on credible evidence of misconduct or risk, even without a court-martial conviction. The threshold for administrative action is lower than that for criminal prosecution. Depending on the service branch, this may involve a separation board, characterization decisions, and documentation that may affect future career opportunities. The outcome depends on the evidence, the member’s service record, and the command’s assessment of risk and suitability.
Q: Do I need a civilian military defense lawyer for an investigation under this article?
A: Retaining a civilian defense lawyer is optional but may be beneficial when facing potential criminal charges or significant career impact. A civilian attorney can provide independent guidance, coordinate with appointed military counsel, and offer additional support during investigations or administrative actions. The decision typically depends on the seriousness of the allegations, the member’s understanding of the process, and the potential consequences for career, duty status, and long-term professional standing.
Q: Can Article 110 allegations be handled without a court-martial, such as through administrative action or nonjudicial punishment?
A: Yes. In some cases, commanders may address alleged misconduct through nonjudicial punishment or administrative measures instead of referral to court-martial. This approach often depends on the severity of the conduct, the extent of any damage, and the service member’s prior record. Administrative actions may include reprimands, training requirements, or separation proceedings. Nonjudicial punishment can impose penalties without establishing a criminal conviction while still addressing concerns about safety and performance.
Q: Which agencies typically investigate allegations of improper hazarding of a vessel or aircraft?
A: Investigations may involve agencies such as the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Army Criminal Investigation Division, or specialized safety boards depending on the service branch and type of incident. These entities may collect flight or navigation data, interview witnesses, and review maintenance or operational records. The investigative scope generally focuses on determining whether actions deviated from established procedures and whether those actions created an unreasonable risk to the craft.
Q: What types of evidence are commonly evaluated in an Article 110 case?
A: Evidence often includes operational logs, navigation data, flight records, maintenance documentation, and witness statements from crew members or observers. Investigators may also review training certifications, safety protocols, and technical reports to assess whether a departure from standard procedures occurred. Physical evidence from the vessel or aircraft may be examined when applicable. The goal is to determine whether specific decisions or actions materially increased the risk to the craft in a way prohibited by the article.
You can review the individual Articles of the UCMJ and learn more about military law by clicking here: UCMJ Articles and Military Justice Resources. You can also explore official military law guidance from the Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps at jagcnet.army.mil.
A renowned military criminal defense attorney and best-selling author, Michael Waddington defends clients worldwide in serious cases and trains lawyers in advanced cross-examination. He is frequently featured by major media outlets like CNN and 60 Minutes.
Alexandra González-Waddington is a top military and civilian defense attorney who has handled high-profile sexual assault, violent crime, and war-crimes cases globally. Her work is widely recognized by media outlets including 60 Minutes and ABC’s Nightline.
