A charge of missing movement under Article 87 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is serious. Depending on the facts, it can put a service member's career, pay, liberty, and future opportunities at risk. In some cases, the potential punishment includes confinement and a punitive discharge. This article explains what Article 87, UCMJ, covers, what prosecutors must prove, and why the details matter.
If you are under investigation or have already been charged with missing movement, it’s important that you speak with an experienced military defense counsel as early as possible. Contact MJA today for a free consultation.
Article 87, UCMJ, codified at 10 U.S.C. § 887, makes it an offense for a person subject to the UCMJ to miss the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit they are required to move with in the course of duty, if that movement is missed through design or neglect.
Article 87, UCMJ, also covers a separate offense involving wrongfully and intentionally jumping from a vessel into the water. Most Article 87, UCMJ, cases, however, involve the missing movement provision.
In a missing movement case, the government generally must prove three things:
The accused was required, in the course of duty, to move with a ship, aircraft, or unit.
The accused knew of the prospective movement.
The accused missed that movement through design or neglect.
These elements are important because a weakness in any one of them may affect whether the charge can be sustained.
Not every change in location qualifies as a movement under Article 87, UCMJ. In this context, a movement typically involves a substantial distance and period of time.
Whether a movement is substantial depends on the circumstances. Short-duration practice marches or minor shifts in location usually do not qualify. For example, moving a ship from one berth to another in the same harbor or relocating a unit from one barracks to another on the same post is generally not the kind of movement Article 87, UCMJ, is aimed at.
Yes. The nature of the required movement can affect how the offense is analyzed.
If the service member was required to move with a unit, the exact method of transportation is usually less important. The movement may occur by military or commercial transportation and can include travel by ship, train, aircraft, truck, bus, or even on foot.
By contrast, if the service member was assigned as a crew member or directed to travel as a passenger aboard a particular ship or aircraft, then missing that specific sailing or flight becomes central to the charge.
This is one of the most important issues in an Article 87, UCMJ, case.
Design means the movement was missed intentionally and reflects a specific intent to miss the movement. This is when a service member is purposely trying to miss the military movement.
Neglect, on the other hand, means failing to take the measures that were reasonable under the circumstances to ensure presence at the required movement. It may also include acting without adequate attention to the likely consequences—for example, going far enough from the departure area that returning on time becomes unlikely.
This distinction matters because it affects both the theory of the case and the possible punishment.
No. The government does not have to prove the accused knew the exact hour or even the exact date of the movement. What matters is whether the accused had actual knowledge of the prospective movement and whether there was a causal connection between the accused's conduct and the missed movement.
Knowledge may also be proven through circumstantial evidence.
A missing movement allegation may be supported by several types of evidence, including:
official logs or reports,
documentary proof showing whether the accused was present or absent,
testimony from personnel connected to the ship, aircraft, or unit, and
evidence showing the accused was physically elsewhere when the movement took place.
In practice, timing, orders, transportation details, witness testimony, and notice to the accused can all become important issues.
The maximum punishment under Article 87, UCMJ, depends on the type of alleged conduct:
Missing movement by design: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for up to 2 years
Missing movement by neglect: bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for up to 1 year
Wrongfully and intentionally jumping from a vessel into the water: bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for up to 6 months
In short, allegations involving intentional conduct carry the most severe exposure.
Article 87, UCMJ, also makes it an offense to wrongfully and intentionally jump from a vessel into the water, as wild as that sounds. Under the Manual for Courts-Martial explanation, this can apply when the vessel is operated by or under the control of the armed forces, whether at sea, at anchor, or in port.
These cases often turn on specific facts, not broad assumptions. Depending on the circumstances, important questions may include:
whether the service member was actually required to move with the ship, aircraft, or unit,
whether the alleged movement qualifies under Article 87, UCMJ,
whether the service member had actual knowledge of the movement,
whether the facts support intentional conduct or only alleged negligence, and
whether the government's evidence is reliable and complete.
That does not mean every case can be defeated, but it does mean careful review matters.
The discussion accompanying Article 87, UCMJ, states that bona fide suicide attempts should not be charged as criminal offenses. In making that determination, authorities may consider factors such as health conditions, personal stressors, and Department of Defense policy related to suicide prevention.
A missing movement allegation can create both criminal and administrative consequences. In addition to the risk of court-martial punishment, a service member may face long-term professional and personal consequences affecting future service and civilian opportunities.
Because these cases often depend on knowledge, notice, intent, and the nature of the ordered movement, early legal review can be important. In some situations, related absence-based allegations may also overlap with issues involved in AWOL or desertion defense.
Article 87, UCMJ, cases are rarely just about whether someone failed to board a flight or move with a unit. The real questions are what the service member was ordered to do, what they knew, what steps they took, and why the movement was missed.
If you are being investigated or charged with missing movement under the UCMJ, understanding those distinctions early can matter. Military Justice Attorneys helps service members evaluate Article 87, UCMJ, allegations, understand their options, and respond strategically at the earliest stages of an investigation or case.
Our decentralized approach to military defense ensures that we can represent service members from any branch of the military, of any rank, at any military base or installation stateside or abroad.
Available 24/7 to Help Anyone in the World
(843) 755-6535