|
Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) refers to certain limited
punishments which can be awarded for minor disciplinary
offenses by a commanding officer or officer in charge to
members of his/her command. In the Navy and Coast Guard,
nonjudicial punishment proceedings are referred to as
"captain's mast" or simply "mast." In the Marine Corps, the
process is called "office hours," and in the Army and Air
Force, it is referred to as "Article 15." Article 15 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and Part V of the
Manual for Courts-Martial constitute the basic law concerning
nonjudicial punishment procedures. The legal protection
afforded an individual subject to NJP proceedings is more
complete than is the case for nonpunitive measures, but, by
design, is less extensive than for
courts-martial.
The Term "Officer in Charge" does not mean an "OIC," as
a "job title," but rather a specific officer where the flag
officer holding general court-martial authority designates the
office as the "officer in charge." In most cases, for NJP
purposes, such designations are limited to the Coast Guard and
Naval Services.
"Mast," "Article 15," and "office hours" are procedures
whereby the commanding officer or officer in charge
may:
- Make inquiry into the facts surrounding minor
offenses allegedly committed by a member of his
command;
- afford the accused a hearing as to such offenses;
and
- dispose of such charges by dismissing the charges,
imposing punishment under the provisions of Art. 15, UCMJ,
or referring the case to a court-martial.
What "mast," "Article 15," and "office hours" are
not:
- They are not a trial, as the term "nonjudicial"
implies;
- a conviction; and
- an acquittal if a determination is made not to impose
punishment.
Offenses punishable under article 15. Article 15
gives a commanding officer power to punish individuals for
minor offenses. The term minor offense" has been the cause of
some concern in the administration of NJP. Article 15, UCMJ,
and Part V, para. 1e, MCM (1998 ed.), indicate that the term
"minor offense" means misconduct normally not more serious
than that usually handled at summary court-martial (where the
maximum punishment is thirty days' confinement). These sources
also indicate that the nature of the offense and the
circumstances surrounding its commission are also factors
which should be considered in determining whether an offense
is minor in nature. The term "minor offense" ordinarily does
not include misconduct which, if tried by general
court-martial, could be punished by a dishonorable discharge
or confinement for more than one year. The military services,
however, have taken the position that the final determination
as to whether an offense is "minor" is within the sound
discretion of the commanding officer.
Nature of offense. The Manual for
Courts-Martial, 1998 edition, also indicates in Part V, para.
1e, that, in determining whether an offense is minor, the
"nature of the offense" should be considered. This is a
significant statement and often is misunderstood as referring
to the seriousness or gravity of the offense. Gravity refers
to the maximum possible punishment, however, and is the
subject of separate discussion in that paragraph. In context,
nature of the offense refers to its character, not its
gravity. In military criminal law, there are two basic types
of misconduct-disciplinary infractions and crimes.
Disciplinary infractions are breaches of standards governing
the routine functioning of society. Thus, traffic laws,
license requirements, disobedience of military orders,
disrespect to military superiors, etc., are disciplinary
infractions. Crimes, on the other hand, involve offenses
commonly and historically recognized as being particularly
evil (such as robbery, rape, murder, aggravated assault,
larceny, etc.). Both types of offenses involve a lack of
self-discipline, but crimes involve a particularly gross
absence of self-discipline amounting to a moral deficiency.
They are the product of a mind particularly disrespectful of
good moral standards. In most cases, criminal acts are not
minor offenses and, usually, the maximum imposable punishment
is great. Disciplinary offenses, however, are serious or minor
depending upon circumstances and, thus, while some
disciplinary offenses carry severe maximum penalties, the law
recognizes that the impact of some of these offenses on
discipline will be slight. Hence, the term "disciplinary
punishment" used in the Manual for Courts-Martial, 1998
edition, is carefully chosen.
Circumstances. The circumstances surrounding the
commission of a disciplinary infraction are important to the
determination of whether such an infraction is minor. For
example, willful disobedience of an order to take ammunition
to a unit engaged in combat can have fatal consequences for
those engaged in the fight and, hence, is a serious matter.
Willful disobedience of an order to report to the barbershop
may have much less of an impact on discipline. The offense
must provide for both extremes, and it does because of a high
maximum punishment limit. When dealing with disciplinary
infractions, the commander must be free to consider the impact
of circumstance since he is considered the best judge of it;
whereas, in disposing of crimes, society at large has an
interest coextensive with that of the commander, and criminal
defendants are given more extensive safeguards. Hence, the
commander's discretion in disposing of disciplinary
infractions is much greater than his latitude in dealing with
crimes.
Imposition of NJP does not, in all cases, preclude a
subsequent court-martial for the same offense. See Part V,
para. 1e, MCM (1998 ed.) and page 4-34. Additionally, Article
43(b)(2), UCMJ, prohibits the imposition of NJP more than two
years after the commission of the offense.
Cases previously tried in civil courts. Military
regulations permit the use of NJP to punish an accused for an
offense for which he has been tried by a domestic or foreign
civilian court, or whose case has been diverted out of the
regular criminal process for a probationary period, or whose
case has been adjudicated by juvenile court authorities, if
authority is obtained from the officer exercising general
court-martial jurisdiction (In the Air Force, such permission
can only be granted by the Secretary of the Air
Force).
NJP may not be imposed for an act tried by a court that
derives its authority from the United States, such as a
Federal district court.
Clearly, cases in which a finding of guilt or innocence
has been reached in a trial by court-martial cannot be then
taken to NJP. However, the last point at which cases may be
withdrawn from court-martial before findings with a view
toward NJP is presently unclear.
Off-base offenses. Commanding officers and
officers in charge may dispose of minor disciplinary
infractions (which occur on or off-base) at NJP. Unless the
off-base offense is one previously adjudicated by civilian
authorities, there is no limit on the authority of military
authorities to resolve such offenses at NJP.
Right of the accused to demand trial by
court-martial. Except in the case of a person attached to
or embarked in a vessel, an accused may demand trial by
court-martial in lieu of NJP. The key time factor in
determining whether or not a person has the right to demand
trial is the time of the imposition of the NJP and not the
time of the commission of the offense.
|Previous| |1| |2|
|3|
|4|
|5|
|6|
|Next|
Information derived from Handbook of Military
Justice & Civil Law, Courtesy of the United States
Navy
Start a chat
now!
|
