Table Content
Article 87 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice establishes the offense of missing movement, which concerns a service member’s failure to be present for a scheduled movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which they are required to travel. The provision is designed to ensure operational readiness and the integrity of military deployments. The offense applies when the movement is officially ordered and the member is obligated to participate.
The statute prohibits a service member from missing the departure of the unit, ship, or aircraft through either intentional actions or culpable negligence. The required movement must be specific and directed by competent authority. The offense is complete when the movement departs without the member who was required to be on board or present.
Only persons subject to the UCMJ may be charged, typically active duty members of the armed forces. Reservists and National Guard members serving under federal orders are also within the statute’s reach. Civilians are not chargeable under this article.
Article 87 recognizes two mental states: intentional missing of movement and missing movement through neglect. Intent involves purposeful avoidance of the movement, while neglect requires a failure to exercise due care. Simple accident or circumstances beyond the member’s control generally do not meet the mental state requirement.
Attempts to miss movement may be prosecuted under Article 80, which covers attempts to commit any offense under the UCMJ. Conspiracy to miss movement may be charged under Article 81 when two or more persons agree to commit the offense. Accomplice liability applies under Article 77 for those who aid, abet, or encourage another in missing a required movement.
These related provisions allow the military justice system to address preparatory or cooperative conduct that threatens assigned operational movements.
To secure a conviction for Missing Movement under Article 87, the government must establish each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements define the precise factual and mental components necessary to prove that the accused failed to move with a designated ship, aircraft, or unit as required by military orders.
The mens rea for Article 87 depends on whether the government alleges neglect or design. Neglect requires proof of a culpably careless failure to act, whereas design requires intentional conduct resulting in the missed movement. The government must prove the specific mental state charged.
The actus reus is the failure to be present and to move with the designated ship, aircraft, or unit at the time ordered. Actual departure of the unit is not always necessary if the accused’s absence effectively results in missing the movement as defined by operational requirements.
Key statutory terms include “ship,” “aircraft,” and “unit,” each referring to officially designated military conveyances or formations scheduled for movement under competent orders. “Neglect” and “design” are distinct modes of liability that shape the required proof for the government’s case.
Punishment under Article 87, UCMJ (Missing Movement), depends on when the alleged offense occurred. Offenses committed before December 27, 2023 are governed by the traditional maximum_punishment model in the Manual for Courts_Martial (MCM). Offenses committed on or after December 27, 2023 fall under the offense_based sentencing framework established by Executive Order 14103 (2024 MCM), which uses sentencing categories with defined confinement parameters.
The pre_December 27, 2023 maximum punishments for Article 87 distinguished between missing movement “through neglect” and “through design.” Under the 2019 MCM:
The post_December 27, 2023 system assigns offenses to sentencing categories with defined confinement limits. Under the 2024 MCM:
Sentencing categories establish structured maximum confinement parameters rather than relying solely on the traditional “maximum punishment” table. The authorized punitive discharges and collateral consequences remain tied to the offense itself, but the confinement available to the sentencing authority is defined by the category assigned in the MCM. Categories provide uniformity and consistency across cases, while the earlier model relied entirely on offense_specific maximums without standardized confinement ranges.
Charging decisions under Article 87 typically reflect the specific fact pattern, how the absence or failure to board was discovered, and the command’s assessment of intent or culpability. Investigative findings, operational impact, and the service member’s duty status at the time often shape whether the conduct is treated administratively or escalated into a formal charge.
Article 87 charges most often arise in routine, real-world scenarios rather than extreme or unusual circumstances. Typical pathways include:
In practice, these cases frequently stem from administrative records, witness statements from movement personnel, and the service member’s duty logs rather than dramatic or intentional attempts to avoid deployment.
Prosecutors frequently include these charges because they capture distinct elements and allow the factfinder to assess the conduct from multiple legal angles.
Cases usually originate from a missed muster report or a movement control officer’s notification to the chain of command. Commands may initiate preliminary inquiries or command-directed investigations to document timelines, notification procedures, and the service member’s duty status. When intent or broader misconduct is suspected, law-enforcement entities such as CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS may conduct interviews, obtain travel records, and review electronic communications relevant to the movement and associated orders.
Charging patterns often involve stacking Article 87 with related offenses to address each component of the conduct—absence, violation of orders, and statements made during the inquiry. Prosecutors sometimes charge alternative theories under Articles 86 or 92 to ensure that the adjudicative body has options if specific elements of Article 87 are not fully supported. Overlap is common because missed movements inherently intersect with reporting requirements, travel directives, and documentation protocols.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 87 often hinge on whether the government can prove each statutory element beyond a reasonable doubt. Litigation typically focuses on factual reconstruction, witness reliability, evidentiary rulings, and interpretation of statutory and regulatory language governing required movements, orders, and duties.
Disputes frequently arise regarding whether a movement was properly constituted, duly published, or communicated in a manner sufficient to obligate the accused. Questions also emerge about whether the accused was assigned to the movement at the time of the alleged offense. Controversy may center on the nature of the movement—whether it qualifies as an aircraft, ship, or unit movement within the meaning of the article—and whether the accused’s absence amounted to a genuine failure to move rather than a delay, miscommunication, or administrative oversight. These issues generally involve detailed scrutiny of orders, rosters, movement manifests, and operational directives.
Mens rea is a recurring point of contention, particularly where the government alleges that the accused intentionally or knowingly missed the movement. Disputes can involve whether the accused had actual knowledge of the movement, whether the government must prove specific intent, and how to interpret conduct that might suggest negligence, misunderstanding, or inadvertence. Litigation often examines contemporaneous statements, timelines, and surrounding circumstances to determine whether mental state requirements have been met under the statute and applicable case law.
Witness credibility commonly affects cases under Article 87. Conflicting accounts of briefing times, notice procedures, instructions from superiors, or the accused’s whereabouts often require fact-finders to evaluate reliability and corroboration. Credibility assessments may involve supervisors, fellow service members, transportation personnel, or administrative staff who handled orders or manifests. Such disputes do not resolve legal questions on their own but frequently influence determinations regarding contested elements.
Evidentiary disputes may involve admissibility of statements made during command inquiries, rights advisements, or investigative interviews. Suppression motions can arise from searches of barracks rooms, digital devices, or command records. Parties may litigate the reliability and authenticity of digital logs, travel records, or electronic communications documenting notice of the movement or the accused’s location. Chain-of-custody issues and scope-of-search questions are also common.
Ambiguities in statutory language can generate litigation, particularly regarding what qualifies as a “movement,” how assignment to that movement must be established, and the extent to which derivative regulations inform the elements. Courts may also confront interpretive questions about overlapping provisions, such as those addressing absence offenses or dereliction, and how these provisions interact with Article 87’s specific requirements.
Understanding AWOL and unauthorized absence issues that often precede missing movement allegations
How desertion charges may relate to failures or refusals to move with assigned units
Resisting apprehension in situations involving failure to report or movement violations
Failure to follow movement or deployment orders under Article 92
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that can arise from a conviction independently of any sentence imposed by a court-martial. These effects are typically imposed by military regulatory processes, federal agencies, or civilian authorities and may continue after the completion of judicial punishment.
A conviction for violating UCMJ Article 87, Missing Movement, can influence several administrative and career-related determinations. Depending on the circumstances, the command may initiate administrative separation proceedings, and the resulting discharge characterization may be impacted by the underlying misconduct. Promotion eligibility can be limited due to adverse personnel records, and certain career fields may become inaccessible. For members approaching retirement, the conviction may affect retention decisions or the ability to qualify for continued service, which in turn can influence retirement eligibility. Reenlistment or future accession into another service component may also be restricted.
An Article 87 conviction can raise concerns about reliability, judgment, or trustworthiness during security clearance evaluations. This may affect eligibility for continued access to classified information or assignment to positions requiring special trust. After separation, some employers—particularly in defense or government contracting—may review clearance history as part of their hiring process.
Missing Movement convictions do not ordinarily trigger sex offender registration or similar reporting requirements. Any such requirements in rare circumstances would depend on the specific conduct involved and the federal or state laws governing registration programs.
The conduct underlying a Missing Movement offense generally does not create separate civilian criminal exposure, though unusual circumstances—such as related fraud or property offenses—could fall under state or federal jurisdiction. Civil liability is uncommon but may arise if the conduct caused identifiable financial loss.
For non-citizens, a conviction may be considered in immigration assessments involving good moral character or admissibility. While Missing Movement is not typically categorized as a deportable offense, it may still factor into discretionary evaluations for certain immigration or naturalization processes.
During an investigation for UCMJ Article 87: Missing Movement, the actions taken and information gathered in the early stages often influence the trajectory of the case long before charges are preferred. Decisions made at this point can affect what evidence is available, how events are interpreted, and what options remain as the process continues.
Military investigators typically begin collecting evidence immediately after a suspected missed movement, including statements, travel records, digital data, and command communications. Early legal involvement helps ensure that a service member understands how evidence is being gathered and can help address issues related to accuracy, preservation, or context. This can affect how later decision-makers interpret the information.
Commands or law-enforcement personnel may request interviews before a service member fully understands the scope of the allegation or their rights. Statements made without a clear understanding of the investigative direction can create inconsistencies or provide incomplete context. Legal counsel, including a civilian military defense lawyer, can help clarify rights and prevent misunderstandings during these interactions.
Administrative inquiries and command-directed investigations may proceed while criminal considerations remain open. Early participation without legal guidance can lead to statements or documents that influence both administrative and potential criminal processes.
Choices such as consenting to searches, providing written statements, or responding to administrative requests can have effects that persist throughout any court-martial or administrative action. Understanding these implications early helps ensure that decisions align with the service member’s long-term interests.
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 defending individuals facing courts-martial, administrative actions, and military investigations, providing legal support grounded in extensive experience with the military justice system and its unique procedures.
If you are facing allegations connected to UCMJ Article 87 or anticipate an investigation or administrative action, Gonzalez & Waddington can provide guidance tailored to your situation. Contact the firm to discuss your circumstances and explore how experienced counsel may assist you in navigating the military justice process.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 87: Missing Movement cover?
A: Article 87 addresses situations where a service member intentionally or through neglect fails to be present for the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which they are required to travel. The offense focuses on the member’s failure to make a required movement that was properly scheduled and communicated. Investigators and commanders assess the reason for the absence, the member’s knowledge of the movement, and whether the conduct was willful, negligent, or based on circumstances beyond the member’s control.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 87: Missing Movement?
A: The maximum penalty depends on whether the conduct was willful or the result of neglect. Willful missing movement can carry a significantly harsher maximum punishment than negligent conduct, including confinement, reduction in rank, forfeitures, and a punitive discharge. Commanders and courts consider factors such as the mission’s importance, prior performance, and the circumstances surrounding the absence when determining an appropriate punishment within the authorized limits for the specific form of the offense.
Q: Can an allegation under this article lead to administrative separation even without a conviction?
A: Yes. A command may initiate administrative separation based on substantiated misconduct or a pattern of behavior, even if no court_martial conviction occurs. Administrative processes have a lower evidentiary standard than criminal proceedings, and commands may evaluate factors such as reliability, duty performance, and impact on unit readiness. The outcome can range from retention with no action to characterization of service decisions that may affect a member’s future military and civilian opportunities.
Q: Do I need a civilian military defense lawyer for an investigation under this article?
A: Service members are entitled to military defense counsel at no cost, but some choose to hire a civilian attorney for additional assistance. Whether to do so depends on factors such as the complexity of the case, potential exposure to significant punishment, and the member’s comfort level with legal representation. Civilian counsel can offer independent advice and may provide additional time and resources, but the decision ultimately rests with the service member’s individual circumstances.
Q: Can a Missing Movement allegation be handled without a court-martial?
A: Yes. Commands may address certain Missing Movement cases through administrative measures, counseling, reprimands, or nonjudicial punishment when the circumstances are less severe or when the evidence does not justify court_martial charges. Factors such as the member’s intent, past performance, and the mission’s impact are typically reviewed. However, more serious or willful cases may still be referred to a court_martial if commanders determine that criminal proceedings are appropriate based on the evidence.
Q: What types of evidence are typically reviewed in a Missing Movement investigation?
A: Investigations generally examine duty rosters, movement orders, unit logs, witness statements, travel records, and any communications that show what the service member knew about the movement and when. Investigators assess whether the member received proper notice, attempted to report, or experienced obstacles outside their control. This evidence helps determine whether the absence was willful, negligent, or the result of unavoidable circumstances, guiding decisions about administrative or criminal action.
To better understand the Articles of the UCMJ and how military law works in practice, you can review the UCMJ and related authorities here: UCMJ Articles and Military Justice Resources. For additional official guidance, visit the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps website at jag.navy.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.
