Table Content
Under the current Manual for Courts-Martial, the conduct described as “drunk, sleeping, or leaving post” is governed by Article 113, Misbehavior of Sentinel or Lookout. Because the requested title corresponds to that established offense, this overview describes the recognized elements of misbehavior by a sentinel or lookout, while noting that statutory numbering may differ in some references.
The offense covers misconduct by a service member assigned as a sentinel or lookout. It criminalizes being found drunk on post, sleeping while posted as a guard or lookout, or leaving the assigned post without proper authority. The statute also applies to any other form of neglect or improper conduct that endangers the security function of the post.
The offense applies to any person subject to the UCMJ who is formally posted as a sentinel, guard, or lookout. It includes personnel on interior guard duty, field watches, security patrols, and similar assignments. Both enlisted and commissioned members may be charged if assigned to such duties.
The required mental state varies by subtype of misconduct. Drunkenness and sleeping on post require proof that the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the duty and failed to meet the alertness expected of a sentinel, although voluntary intoxication is not a defense. Leaving post generally requires intentional or at least knowing departure without authority.
Attempt liability may arise if a service member takes substantial steps toward abandoning a post but is stopped before completing the act. Conspiracy charges are uncommon but may occur if multiple guards agree to neglect their duties. Accomplice liability applies when another person aids, commands, or encourages the sentinel’s misconduct.
The government must prove each element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements define the precise conduct that constitutes misbehavior by a sentinel or lookout under military law.
The required mens rea is satisfied when the accused knowingly occupied the status of a sentinel or lookout and voluntarily engaged in the prohibited conduct. No additional specific intent is required beyond awareness of the duty status.
The actus reus consists of being intoxicated, sleeping, or departing the assigned post without authorization while serving as a sentinel or lookout. Each alternative act constitutes a distinct mode of violating the article, but all share the requirement that the misconduct occur during the performance of the official watch.
Critical terms include “sentinel or lookout,” meaning a service member assigned to maintain vigilance over a specific area or function, and “post,” which refers to the designated location where such duty is to be performed. “Leaving post” requires physical departure prior to proper relief.
Punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) depends on the date of the alleged offense. Offenses committed before December 27, 2023 are sentenced under the traditional maximum_punishment model, while offenses on or after that date are sentenced under the newer sentencing_category system established by the 2023 amendments to the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts_Martial.
For Article 95, Drunk, Sleeping, or Leaving Post (misbehavior of a sentinel or lookout), the maximum authorized punishment depends on whether the offense occurred in time of war or not in time of war. The following applies to offenses not in time of war, which is the typical framework:
If committed in time of war, Article 95 historically authorized more severe punishment, including the possibility of the death penalty; however, such cases are rare and governed by separate wartime provisions.
Under the revised sentencing system, Article 95 falls within a sentencing category rather than a fixed maximum_punishment table. For non_wartime misconduct, it is classified in a category that authorizes confinement up to 12 months.
Under the sentencing_category system, each offense is assigned to a category with a defined confinement range. This differs from the prior model, which listed a single maximum punishment for each offense. The new framework provides structured sentencing ranges while retaining judicial discretion within those bounds.
Charging decisions under Article 95 generally reflect the concrete fact pattern uncovered during initial reporting, the scope and thoroughness of preliminary inquiries, and the level of command concern about good order and discipline. Commanders and prosecutors often look at the duty context, the service member’s responsibilities, and the degree of risk created when determining whether to prefer charges under this article.
Article 95 allegations typically arise in routine duty environments where accountability is strictly monitored. The most frequent circumstances involve duty positions requiring continuous presence or alertness, such as guard posts, watch stations, security patrols, fire watch, or personnel standing duty during nonduty hours. Reports usually originate when a supervisor, duty officer, or relief finds the service member absent from their assigned location, visibly impaired, or asleep during required watchstanding. Alcohol-related allegations commonly develop after weekend duty sections or overnight posts where an odor of alcohol, admissions of drinking, or observed impairment trigger further inquiry. Sleeping-on-post allegations often emerge from routine rounds or watch turnover checks. Leaving-post allegations typically involve a service member departing without authorization to take a break, get food, or return to living quarters.
Inquiry usually begins with an on-the-spot report by the duty supervisor, petty officer of the watch, or staff duty NCO. Commands often initiate a preliminary inquiry or command-directed investigation to document timelines, duty assignments, and witness observations. When intoxication is alleged, security forces or military law enforcement may become involved to conduct breath tests or collect statements. More serious situations—such as repeated offenses or incidents occurring at sensitive security posts—may be referred to CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS for formal investigative support, especially where broader misconduct could be implicated.
Prosecutors frequently charge Article 95 alongside alternative or overlapping theories to ensure full coverage of the underlying conduct. Charge-stacking often reflects the interconnected nature of duty violations, where a single event may involve absence, impairment, and failure to follow written orders. Overlap with Articles 92 and 86 is particularly common, as those provisions address related duty failures arising from the same incident. Charging decisions generally seek to capture the complete duty impact while leaving room for fact-specific findings at trial or during pretrial negotiations.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 95, covering being drunk on post, sleeping on post, or leaving post, often hinge on the government’s ability to establish specific statutory elements. Litigated issues typically focus on the sufficiency of proof, the reliability of witness accounts, the impact of evidentiary rulings, and the interpretation of statutory terms governing duty status, impairment, and the nature of the post itself.
Disputes frequently arise over whether the government has demonstrated each required element beyond a reasonable doubt. Common areas of contention include:
Such challenges typically involve factual reconstruction, interpretation of duty orders, and evaluation of physical or observational evidence.
Intent requirements can be central to disputes under Article 95. Questions often arise about whether the offense requires proof of knowledge, recklessness, or negligence, depending on the specific conduct charged. For example, determinations of intoxication may implicate whether the accused knowingly consumed substances that impaired performance, while cases involving leaving post may involve debates about whether the departure was deliberate or the result of misunderstanding or confusion. These issues frequently require analysis of contemporaneous statements, surrounding circumstances, and regulatory guidance on duty expectations.
Witness credibility often plays a significant role. Observations of intoxication, sleep, or unauthorized absence tend to depend on subjective assessments by guards, supervisors, or fellow service members. Inconsistencies in accounts, memory gaps, or conflicting statements can influence the weight assigned to testimony without resolving the underlying question of guilt or innocence. Credibility issues also arise when the defense and government offer differing accounts of the accused’s duty status or environmental conditions.
Evidentiary disputes may involve the admissibility of statements made during command inquiries, searches of duty areas, or digital records documenting duty assignments and movements. Challenges can arise concerning the voluntariness of statements, the scope of consent or command authority in searches, and the reliability or authentication of surveillance, sensor, or electronic logs. Suppression motions often focus on procedural compliance with military rules of evidence.
Ambiguities in statutory terminology or incorporation of regulatory definitions can lead to interpretive disputes. Questions may involve what constitutes a “post,” how “drunk” should be defined when regulations provide varying standards, or how cross-referenced provisions within the UCMJ interact. Courts may analyze legislative history, prior decisions, and service regulations to resolve these issues.
Unauthorized absence under Article 86 is frequently examined alongside leaving a post violations
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may arise independently of the sentence imposed at a court-martial. These consequences may affect a service member’s career, civilian opportunities, and certain legal statuses even after any judicial punishment has been completed.
A conviction under UCMJ Article 95 for being drunk on post, sleeping on post, or leaving a post may influence personnel decisions made outside the judicial process. Potential outcomes include:
Misconduct reflecting diminished reliability or judgment may affect eligibility for a security clearance. This can include enhanced scrutiny during periodic reinvestigations, temporary suspension of access to classified information, or denial or revocation of a clearance. Post-service employment in fields that rely on clearance eligibility may also be affected.
Convictions under Article 95 typically do not trigger sex offender registration or similar statutory reporting obligations. Any registration requirement would depend on the specific conduct involved and applicable federal or state laws rather than the article of conviction itself.
Depending on the circumstances, the conduct underlying the offense could also violate civilian criminal laws, such as trespass, neglect of duty, or alcohol-related offenses. Civil liability could arise if the conduct caused injury or property damage.
For non-citizens, certain convictions may affect admissibility, adjustment of status, or naturalization. Effects vary by immigration category and the specific facts of the offense, and are determined by federal immigration authorities.
During the investigative phase of an allegation under UCMJ Article 95, the information collected and the decisions made by the service member often shape the outcome of the case long before charges are preferred. Early legal guidance helps ensure that the member understands the investigative process and the potential implications of initial actions.
Military investigators typically begin gathering evidence immediately, including witness statements, duty logs, digital records, and any documentation related to the alleged failure to remain on post. Early legal involvement can help ensure that statements are accurately documented, that potentially exculpatory materials are preserved, and that the context of digital or written records is properly understood.
Command or law-enforcement interviews may occur before a service member fully understands the nature of the allegation or the scope of the investigation. Without guidance, a member may give incomplete or unclear information, potentially consent to searches without knowing the implications, or make assumptions about the facts being examined. A civilian military defense lawyer can explain rights related to interviews and help the member avoid misunderstandings.
Administrative inquiries, such as commander-directed investigations or AR 15-6 reviews, may begin even when no criminal charges are anticipated. Decisions made during these processes, including written responses or cooperation levels, can influence later command decisions and shape any future disciplinary actions.
Early choices—such as providing statements, permitting searches, or responding to administrative inquiries—can have lasting consequences. These decisions may affect how evidence is evaluated, how credibility is assessed, and how the case proceeds through potential court-martial or administrative channels.
Gonzalez & Waddington is a civilian military defense law firm that represents service members facing allegations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The firm focuses on defending clients in complex military criminal cases worldwide, including matters arising under UCMJ Article 95 involving accusations of being drunk, sleeping on post, or leaving an assigned post. Its attorneys draw on extensive experience in military justice to help service members navigate the unique procedures and challenges of the military legal system.
If you are facing allegations related to UCMJ Article 95 and would like to understand your rights and options, you may contact Gonzalez & Waddington to request a consultation. The firm can provide information about the military justice process and discuss potential avenues for defense based on the specifics of your situation.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 95: Drunk, Sleeping, or Leaving Post cover?
A: Article 95 applies when a service member is assigned a duty post or guard position and is alleged to have been drunk, asleep, or to have abandoned that post without proper authority. The article focuses on conduct that affects the security, readiness, or functioning of a unit. The specific elements depend on whether the allegation involves intoxication, sleeping while on duty, or leaving a designated post before being relieved.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 95: Drunk, Sleeping, or Leaving Post?
A: Maximum punishment varies based on the nature of the duty and the type of violation. Guard or watch duties considered more sensitive can carry higher exposure, including confinement, forfeitures, reduction in grade, and a punitive discharge if referred to a general or special court-martial. Lesser forms of the offense, such as sleeping on non-critical duty, allow for lower maximum penalties. Commanders determine the forum based on the circumstances.
Q: Can an allegation under this article lead to administrative separation even without a conviction?
A: Yes. Commands may initiate administrative separation based on substantiated misconduct or a pattern of conduct, even without a court-martial or nonjudicial punishment conviction. The process depends on the service branch’s administrative regulations and the member’s years of service. Potential outcomes can include retention, a probationary period, or separation with a characterization of service based on the overall record and underlying facts.
Q: Do I need a civilian military defense lawyer for an investigation under this article?
A: Service members have the right to consult with appointed military defense counsel at no cost, and they may also choose to hire a civilian attorney. Whether to engage civilian counsel depends on the complexity of the allegation, the member’s comfort with the process, and potential career impact. Civilian counsel can offer independent guidance but is not mandatory for participation in interviews, responses, or administrative proceedings.
Q: Can this be handled without a court-martial, such as through administrative action or nonjudicial punishment?
A: Many Article 95 allegations are addressed through nonjudicial punishment or administrative measures when the circumstances involve lower-risk duty positions or limited impact. Commanders review the evidence, duty type, and potential security implications before deciding on the appropriate forum. Options may include counseling, reprimands, corrective training, or NJP, while more serious cases can be referred for court-martial based on available evidence.
Q: What types of evidence are typically reviewed in an Article 95 investigation?
A: Investigations often include watch logs, duty rosters, supervisor statements, video surveillance, access records, and any documented indicators of impairment. Investigators may also review medical or toxicology information when intoxication is alleged. The focus is on establishing duty assignment, the member’s condition, and whether the member left or abandoned a required position. Evidence requirements differ depending on whether the case proceeds administratively or judicially.
Q: Which agencies typically investigate alleged violations of Article 95?
A: Initial inquiries are often handled at the unit level, but more formal investigations can involve military law enforcement such as CID, NCIS, or OSI, depending on the branch and the seriousness of the allegation. These agencies may interview witnesses, collect physical evidence, and review duty procedures. Their role is to provide commanders with sufficient information to determine the appropriate disposition of the case.
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.
