Article 110 UCMJ – Improper Hazarding of a Vessel – Military Defense Lawyers

UCMJ Military Defense Guide by Gonzalez & Waddington

Article 110 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes improperly hazarding a vessel. This offense applies to any service member who recklessly, negligently, or intentionally endangers a ship, boat, cutter, submarine, or any other vessel belonging to or operated by the United States Armed Forces. Article 110 allegations often arise in the Navy and Coast Guard, but can apply to any branch when a service member operates, navigates, or supervises watercraft. These cases frequently involve navigation errors, negligent seamanship, collisions, groundings, mechanical failures, operational mishaps, leadership failures, alcohol-related mistakes, or maintenance negligence. Even minor incidents can trigger aggressive investigations, especially when a vessel is damaged or mission readiness is impaired. Florida—home to Naval Station Mayport, NAS Jacksonville, Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville, Sector Miami, Sector Key West, Sector St. Petersburg, Air Station Clearwater, NSA Panama City, and heavy military maritime traffic—is a hotspot for Article 110 allegations. High boat density, busy waterways, unpredictable weather, heavy civilian traffic, and complex port operations increase the likelihood of accidents and misunderstandings. Gonzalez & Waddington defends service members facing Article 110 accusations by dismantling negligent-seamanship theories, exposing mechanical failures, highlighting command or maintenance faults, and showing that any alleged “hazarding” was unavoidable, unintentional, or not due to the accused. ➤ Request an Article 110 Defense Strategy

What Article 110 Criminalizes

A service member may violate Article 110 if they:

Suffer a vessel to be hazarded
Willfully hazard a vessel
Wrongfully and negligently hazard a vessel
Operate a vessel in a dangerous manner
Fail to properly supervise navigation or engineering operations
Ignore safety, navigation, or engineering procedures
Cause a vessel collision, grounding, or near-miss

A “hazarding” event includes anything placing the vessel in danger of loss, damage, collision, grounding, fire, flooding, or loss of control.

Examples of Article 110 Incidents

Running aground through navigation error
Colliding with civilian vessels or docks
Negligent watchstanding leading to near-misses
Improper helm or throttle inputs
Failure to follow COLREGS (Rules of the Road)
Disabling ship systems by accident
Failing to set or maintain proper navigation watch
Allowing vessel to drift into hazard areas
Improper mooring procedures causing damage
Taking a small craft out in unsafe weather

These cases often involve multiple contributing factors—not just the accused’s actions.

Elements the Government Must Prove

1. The Accused Wrongfully, Willfully, or Negligently Endangered a Vessel

The danger must be real—not hypothetical.

2. The Vessel Belonged to or Was Operated by the U.S. Armed Forces

Includes Navy, Coast Guard, Army watercraft, Marine Corps vessels, and Air Force-owned assets.

3. The Hazard Was Caused by the Accused’s Conduct

This is the most contested element—mechanical, environmental, or systemic failures frequently contribute.

4. The Conduct Was Wrongful

Accidents, equipment faults, bad directions, and unpredictable weather undermine this element.

What Article 110 Is NOT

The following situations do not automatically equal improper hazarding:

Equipment failure outside the operator’s control
Weather-related loss of steering or propulsion
Conflicting or unclear directions from the chain of command
Incidents caused by poor maintenance
Navigation errors due to faulty charts or instruments
Damage caused by another crew member
Situational emergencies requiring risky maneuvers
Environmental factors (currents, wind gusts, fog)

The military often blames the most junior or vulnerable sailor, soldier, or coxswain—regardless of real fault.

Why Article 110 Cases Are Often Weak

Investigators fail to consider mechanical failure
Poor maintenance history ignored
Watchstanders, OODs, or senior leaders escape scrutiny
Training shortfalls contribute to mistakes
Environmental factors override sailor decisions
Crew fatigue or operational tempo ignored
Complex operations with high risk of error
Accidents blamed on individuals instead of systemic issues

Article 110 cases often collapse when examined by maritime experts.

Why Article 110 Allegations Are Common in Florida

Florida’s environment produces unique maritime hazards:

Heavy civilian boat traffic near Mayport, Miami, Key West, and Tampa Bay
Shallow waters increasing the risk of grounding
Unpredictable storms and tropical systems
Fast currents in Jacksonville and St. Johns River areas
High-value Navy and Coast Guard vessels
Tight port navigation channels (Miami, JaxPort, Tampa)
Special operations training in coastal regions

These risks create potential mishaps even when crews act properly.

Florida-Specific Article 110 Scenarios

1. Mayport Small Boat Collisions

Busy waterways and recreational boaters create unpredictable hazards.

2. NAS Key West Training Mishaps

High-speed ops in shallow water increase risk of equipment strikes or groundings.

3. Coast Guard Cutter Incidents

Chasing drug traffickers or conducting SAR missions in rough seas creates unavoidable risks.

4. Port of Miami Navigation Challenges

Tight maneuvering near cruise ships and commercial vessels leads to exaggerated allegations.

5. Air Station Clearwater Boat Launch Mishaps

Rapid deployments can cause hurried loading procedures, misinterpretations, and accidents.

6. Storm-Related Vessel Damage

Hurricanes and tropical storms cause unpredictable vessel movement.

How Article 110 Investigations Work

Investigations typically include:

Coast Guard or Navy marine casualty investigations
NCIS / CGIS / CID, depending on situation
Navigation and engineering logs
VDR (Voyage Data Recorder) analysis
Bridge, helm, and engine-room interviews
Charts, GPS, AIS, radar, and plot data review
Maintenance records
Weather reports and marine advisories

Common Investigation Failures We Expose

Ignoring mechanical failures or maintenance lapses
Misreading VDR or navigation data
Interview bias—junior personnel blamed unfairly
Environmental factors disregarded
Poor training or lack of certification ignored
Improper supervision from senior leadership
Watchstanding errors by others misattributed to accused

Defense Strategies for Article 110 Cases

1. Mechanical Failure Defense

Engine, steering, propulsion, electrical, or sensor failures undermine criminal responsibility.

2. Environmental Factors

Weather, currents, waves, or visibility issues undermine intent or negligence.

3. Command / Supervisory Negligence

Poor leadership often causes or worsens the mishap.

4. Florida-Specific Defenses

Shallow-water challenges
Dense civilian boat traffic
Rapidly changing coastal conditions

5. Watch Team Fatigue

High operational tempo reduces performance and can be mitigating.

6. Faulty Charts / Navigation Aids

Incorrect electronic or paper data creates errors outside the operator’s control.

7. No Actual Hazard

If the vessel was never genuinely in danger, Article 110 does not apply.

8. Expert Witness Testimony

We use maritime experts, naval engineers, and navigation specialists.

Potential Punishments for Article 110 Violations

Punishment varies by intent:

Willful Hazarding

Life imprisonment
Dishonorable discharge
Total forfeitures
Reduction to E-1

Negligent Hazarding

Confinement up to 2 years
Bad conduct discharge
Total forfeitures
Reduction to E-1

Even unintentional incidents can end a service member’s career if not properly defended.

Pro Tips for Anyone Accused Under Article 110

Do NOT speak to investigators without legal counsel.
Do NOT accept blame for mechanical failure or poor supervision.
Preserve logs, texts, emails, and navigation notes.
Document sea conditions, weather, and orders received.
Identify witnesses from the watch team.
Avoid discussing the incident with the chain of command.
Hire a defense lawyer who understands maritime operations.

➤ Protect Your Rank, Credentials & Future – Contact Gonzalez & Waddington

Article 110 – Frequently Asked Questions

Does any navigation mistake qualify as “hazarding” a vessel?

No. A simple mistake is not enough. The government must prove the vessel was actually endangered—and that the accused acted willfully or negligently, not simply imperfectly.

Can mechanical failure or poor maintenance be a defense?

Absolutely. Many Article 110 allegations stem from equipment issues, not operator misconduct. We often prove that maintenance failures, aging systems, or technical malfunctions—not the accused—caused the hazard.

What if senior leaders gave unclear or incorrect orders?

Improper guidance is a powerful defense. Many mishaps involve miscommunication, incomplete orders, or poor command decisions—yet investigators blame the most junior operator. We expose these failures.

Is Article 110 a career-ending charge?

It can be. Even negligent hazarding may lead to separation, loss of qualifications, decertification, or inability to serve in maritime roles. Strong defense representation is essential to save your career.

Why hire Gonzalez & Waddington?

Because Article 110 cases involve complex navigation, maritime, engineering, and operational issues. Our firm understands Navy, Coast Guard, and joint maritime operations and uses expert analysis, digital forensics, and aggressive litigation to destroy weak cases and protect your career.