Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is a provision that allows commanders to administer discipline without a formal court-martial​. This process is known as Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP). Article 15/NJP is a way to handle minor offenses inside the unit chain of command, quickly and fairly, while avoiding the time and stigma of a court-martial. It is an important tool in the military justice system for maintaining good order and discipline.

What is Article 15 and Its Purpose?

Article 15 is essentially the military’s method for handling minor misconduct internally. It gives a commanding officer the power to punish service members for minor violations of the UCMJ without going through a court-martial​. The purpose of Article 15 is to address infractions that are more serious than a simple counseling or reprimand, but not serious enough to warrant a criminal trial​. For example, behavior like showing up late to duty, disobeying a minor order, sleeping on watch, or petty theft can be dealt with via NJP instead of a court-martial​. By using Article 15, commanders can correct these issues swiftly and keep the unit running smoothly, without giving the service member a federal conviction.

Under NJP proceedings, the commanding officer acts as the judge and jury​. They will hear the facts, consider any statements or evidence, and decide if the member is guilty of the offense. If guilty, the commander also decides an appropriate punishment from the limited penalties allowed at NJP. The overall goal is to maintain discipline within the unit and deter future misconduct while giving the service member a second chance to improve without the heavy consequences of a court-martial on their record​. 

Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) vs. Courts-Martial vs. Administrative Actions

It’s important to understand how NJP under Article 15 differs from a court-martial and from administrative actions:

  • Not a Criminal Trial: NJP is non-judicial, meaning it is not a formal courtroom trial. There is no military judge or jury present. Instead, the commanding officer conducts the hearing and makes the decision​. In a court-martial, by contrast, the case is handled like a criminal trial with a judge, attorneys, and (for serious cases) a panel of members (jury). A court-martial can result in a federal conviction on the service member’s record, whereas Article 15 punishments do not create a criminal record​. 
  • Level of Offense: NJP is meant for minor offenses under the UCMJ—the kind of infractions that warrant discipline but are not severe crimes​. For more serious offenses (for example, felonies or serious military crimes), the military bypasses NJP and goes straight to a court martial​. In essence, NJP fills the gap between informal counseling and full judicial action.
  • Punishments: The punishments that can be imposed at NJP are limited in severity compared to courts-martial sentences. Under Article 15, a commanding officer can impose penalties such as reduction in rank, extra duties, restriction to base, forfeiture of pay, or written reprimands​. Confinement (jail time) or a dishonorable discharge cannot be given as NJP punishments​. In a court-martial, however, those harsher punishments (including imprisonment or a punitive discharge) are on the table for serious offenses.
  • Procedure and Rights: NJP is more informal than a court-martial, but service members still have rights in the process. They must be notified of the allegations and their rights before the Article 15 proceeding​. They have the right to present their side of the story, submit statements or witness testimonies, and appeal the outcome to a higher commander if they believe the punishment is unjust. One key right is that, in most cases, the service member can refuse NJP and demand a court-martial instead​. This allows the individual to insist on a formal trial if they feel NJP would be unfair – with the exception that members attached to a vessel (such as a ship) do not have the option to refuse NJP​. (For example, a sailor at sea cannot turn down Captain’s Mast, whereas a soldier on land can choose court-martial over an Article 15). By contrast, administrative actions (like formal counseling statements, letters of reprimand, or administrative separation proceedings) do not offer a hearing with evidence and are not punitive “trials” at all – they are management tools. NJP stands in between: it is more formal and punitive than simple administrative actions, but less drastic than a court-martial​. 

In summary, Article 15 NJP is an administrative disciplinary action authorized by law – it lets the unit handle minor misconduct internally. It avoids the stigma and permanent record of a criminal conviction, but it still carries consequences (like lost rank or pay) that can seriously affect a service member’s career if not handled properly​. That’s why NJP is taken seriously in the military, even though it’s not a court-martial.

Who Has Authority to Impose Article 15 (NJP)?

The authority to impose NJP comes with command. In general, commanding officers at various levels have the power to administer Article 15 punishment to members of their command​. This means the officer who is in charge of a unit, ship, base, or other command can hold an NJP proceeding for a service member under them. Typically, the authority is given to officers in command positions – for example, a company commander in the Army or the commanding officer of a Navy ship.

Across all branches, the rules are similar but with slight differences in terminology: in the Army and Air Force, only an official commanding officer (an officer appointed to command) can impose an Article 15. In those services, an officer who is merely acting in a supervisory role without formal command title usually cannot award NJP. In the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, the regulations also allow an “Officer in Charge” (OIC) of a unit or detachment to impose NJP if they have been given that authority​. An Officer in Charge in this context is an officer designated by a higher authority to command a smaller unit that may not have a formally assigned commanding officer. For example, the officer in charge of a small Coast Guard station or a Marine detachment could administer NJP if so authorized.

It’s important to note that all NJP authority is rooted in command position – you will only face Article 15 punishment from someone in your direct chain of command (your commanding officer or OIC). A random senior officer from a different unit can’t simply give you an Article 15; it has to be your commander or another officer officially given NJP authority over you. Furthermore, higher commanders (like a battalion or brigade commander in the Army, or an admiral in the Navy) can also hold Article 15 proceedings, especially for more serious minor offenses or for members who are senior. The scope of punishments that can be given may vary based on the rank of the imposing commander (for instance, a senior commander can typically impose harsher NJP penalties than a junior commander), but all must stay within the limits set by the UCMJ and service regulations.

Article 15 in Different Service Branches

Every military branch uses the Article 15/NJP framework, but each has its own terminology and slight procedural quirks. The basics of NJP are consistent – minor offenses handled by commanding officers – but you’ll hear different names for it depending on the service​. Below is a brief overview of how Article 15 is applied in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and Space Force:

  • Army: In the Army, NJP is commonly referred to simply as an “Article 15.” Army commanders (usually company or field-grade officers, depending on the severity) can impose Article 15 punishment on soldiers for minor UCMJ violations. An accused soldier has the right to turn down the Article 15 and demand a court-martial instead, except in rare circumstances (the Army generally doesn’t have soldiers “attached to a vessel,” so practically they can always choose a court-martial)​. Punishments under an Army Article 15 can include extra duty, restriction, reduction in rank, and forfeiture of pay, among others. The Army categorizes Article 15s by the level of the commander (for example, Company Grade or Field Grade Article 15), which determines the maximum punishment, but the detailed limits and process will be covered in a branch-specific section.
  • Navy: In the Navy, Article 15 proceedings are known as “Captain’s Mast” (when conducted by a commanding officer who is a captain or lower rank) or “Admiral’s Mast” (when a flag officer imposes NJP). The term “mast” comes from the naval tradition of administering discipline on the ship’s deck (near the mast). A key difference in the Navy (and Coast Guard) is that if a sailor is **attached to or embarked on a vessel (e.g. serving on a ship), they cannot refuse NJP​. In other words, a sailor at sea must accept Captain’s Mast; they do not have the option to demand a court-martial in that situation. For sailors on shore duty, they do technically have the right to refuse NJP and seek a court-martial, but this is less common. During a Captain’s Mast, the commanding officer (such as the ship’s Captain or commanding officer of a shore installation) hears the case. Navy NJP punishments might include reduction in rate (rank), extra duties, restriction to the ship or base, forfeiture of pay, or even brief confinement on diminished rations (for lower ranks at sea). The Navy also often uses preliminary inquiries like a Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) or Executive Officer’s Inquiry (XOI) before the actual Captain’s Mast, but those are informal steps (not required by the UCMJ) to help the command gather facts. We’ll explore those specifics in the Navy section later.
  • Air Force: The Air Force uses the term “Article 15” or simply “NJP”, just like the Army. An Air Force commander (typically a squadron or wing commander for more serious cases) can offer an Article 15 to an airman for minor violations. The airman usually has the right to accept the Article 15 or refuse and demand trial by court-martial​. Air Force NJP procedure is similar to the Army’s, with a few differences in paperwork and process detailed in Air Force regulations. For instance, Airmen are provided an Area Defense Counsel (ADC) – a military defense lawyer – to consult before deciding whether to accept the Article 15 and to help prepare their case if they go through with the NJP. Punishments in an Air Force Article 15 can include rank reduction, extra duty, restriction, and forfeiture of pay, similar to the other services. The Air Force emphasizes a rehabilitative approach – the commander’s goal is to correct the behavior and return the airman to good standing if possible. More specific Air Force practices (such as the maximum punishments at different command levels) will be discussed in a dedicated section for the Air Force.
  • Marine Corps: The Marine Corps refers to NJP as “Office Hours” (on the East Coast sometimes also just called “NJP”) because traditionally, the commander would address the matter in his office. Marines can be “NJP’d” by their commanding officers for minor offenses, in line with the same UCMJ Article 15 authority. Similar to the Navy, if a Marine is attached to a naval vessel, he or she cannot refuse the NJP and request a court-martial in that scenario​. For Marines not attached to a vessel (e.g., stationed on land), they do have the option to refuse NJP and go to court-martial, though this decision should be made carefully with legal advice. At Office Hours, the Marine’s commanding officer (company commander, battalion commander, etc.) will hear the case. Punishments can include reduction in rank, extra duties, restriction to barracks or base, and forfeiture of pay, among others. The Marine Corps culture places a strong emphasis on discipline, so even an NJP is taken very seriously. We will cover the Marine Corps NJP process (including any unique aspects like guidance from the Marine Corps Manual) in a later section dedicated to the USMC.
  • Coast Guard: In the Coast Guard, NJP is also commonly called “Captain’s Mast,” just like in the Navy​. The Coast Guard operates under the UCMJ as well, and its NJP process closely mirrors Navy traditions due to its maritime service nature. A Coast Guard commanding officer or an authorized officer-in-charge can impose NJP for Coast Guardsmen’s minor offenses​. As with the Navy, Coast Guard members assigned to a cutter or vessel cannot refuse Captain’s Mast when at sea. If they are on shore duty, they could decline NJP and seek a court-martial, but again, this is uncommon. Coast Guard mast punishments are similar to the Navy’s (rank reduction, extra duty, restriction to the ship/base, forfeitures, etc.). The Coast Guard will be covered in its own section, but generally, if you understand Navy NJP, you understand Coast Guard NJP – the biggest difference is just the service-specific terminology and administrative details.
  • Space Force: The Space Force is the newest branch of the armed forces, and it falls under the same UCMJ provisions. Space Force Guardians are subject to Article 15 NJP just like soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. The Space Force has so far followed a discipline process very similar to the Air Force (its parent service) for NJP. A Space Force commanding officer can impose an Article 15 on a Guardian for minor misconduct. Because the Space Force is not a sea-going service, Guardians always have the right to refuse NJP and demand a court-martial if they choose (there’s no equivalent of the “attached to a vessel” situation). The terminology used is still “Article 15” or “NJP,” the same as the Air Force​. Any unique Space Force regulations or policies on NJP will be discussed in a separate Space Force section, but as of now, you can think of it as basically identical to Air Force practice, just in a new branch.

Article 15 NJP is a vital part of military justice, striking a balance between maintaining discipline and avoiding unnecessarily harsh legal action for minor offenses. It allows service members to be held accountable for mistakes without automatically ruining their careers with a court-martial conviction. However, an Article 15 is not trivial – it can result in loss of rank, pay, and privileges, and can derail promotions or future opportunities​. Commanders use NJP to correct behavior and send a message to the unit about standards of conduct.

For service members, understanding Article 15 is important. Accepting or refusing NJP, knowing your rights during the process, and presenting your case can significantly affect the outcome. While NJP is less formal than a court-martial, it’s still a legal process with real consequences. If you or a loved one is facing an Article 15, take it seriously: educate yourself on the process, exercise your rights, and seek guidance (from legal counsel or experienced mentors) if needed.

By knowing what Article 15 involves and how Non-Judicial Punishment works, you’ll be better prepared to navigate the situation and make informed decisions – protecting your rights while moving forward in your military career.​

Cost of Hiring a Lawyer for Your Article 15 Case

At National Security Law Firm, we provide clear, upfront pricing so you know exactly what to expect. If you’re facing Article 15 (Non-Judicial Punishment), we offer a flat fee of $2,500, which includes:

✅ Thorough Case Investigation – We analyze the allegations, gather evidence, and assess the strength of your case.
✅ Preparation & Strategic Planning – We craft a compelling defense, including written responses, mitigating evidence, and witness statements.
✅ Representation at the Article 15 Hearing – We advocate for you during the proceedings, working to minimize penalties or even get the charges dropped.
✅ Guidance on Article 15 vs. Courts-Martial – We help you understand your rights, the potential consequences of each option, and whether rejecting Article 15 in favor of a courts-martial is the right choice for your case.

Learn More About Article 15 Defense

Choosing NJP or court-martial is just the first step. To truly maximize your chances of a favorable outcome, you need to understand the best legal defenses, how to minimize penalties, and what mistakes to avoid. Visit our comprehensive Article 15 resource page to learn about:

  • Winning strategies for NJP hearings
  • Common defenses that can beat an Article 15
  • How to negotiate the best possible outcome
  • The true cost of an NJP vs. a court-martial
  • Mistakes that get service members kicked out—and how to avoid them

Why Choose National Security Law Firm?

When facing NJP or a court-martial, experience matters. The attorneys at National Security Law Firm are not just skilled military defense lawyers—we are battle-tested litigators with real-world experience in military justice. Here’s why service members trust us:

✅ Decades of Military Law Experience: Our team consists of former JAG officers, military prosecutors, retired federal judges, and defense attorneys who have handled thousands of cases like yours.

✅ Aggressive, Strategic Defense: We don’t back down. Our attorneys develop calculated strategies to maximize your chances of avoiding conviction, reducing penalties, or winning outright acquittals.

✅ Insider Knowledge of Military Justice: With extensive experience advising commands on Article 15 and court-martial procedures, we know how the military prosecutes these cases—and we use that knowledge to your advantage.

✅ Personalized Legal Guidance: No two cases are the same. We provide tailored legal strategies, ensuring that your defense is built around the specific facts of your case.

You’ve given your service to this country. Now let us serve you by protecting your rights, your career, and your future.

Don’t Make This Decision Alone—Get Experienced Legal Advice Now

You have a limited time to decide whether to accept NJP or demand a court-martial. Making the wrong choice could cost you your career, your benefits, or even your freedom. Don’t take that risk without talking to an experienced military defense lawyer.

At National Security Law Firm, we provide confidential consultations to help you understand your options and develop a game plan. Call us today at (202) 600-4996 or schedule a free consultation online: Book Now. 

We also offer legal financing options allowing you to pay your legal fees over monthly installments.

Check out our Google Reviews.

National Security Law Firm: It’s Our Turn to Fight for You!