 | This article needs additional citations for verification .(January 2013) |
Non-judicial punishment (NJP) is a disciplinary measure [1] that may be applied to individual military personnel, without a need for a court martial or similar proceedings.
| | This article needs additional citations for verification .(January 2013) |
Non-judicial punishment (NJP) is a disciplinary measure [1] that may be applied to individual military personnel, without a need for a court martial or similar proceedings.
In the United States Armed Forces, non-judicial punishment is a form of military justice authorized by Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. [2] Its rules are further elaborated on in various branch policy as well as the Manual for Courts-Martial. NJP permits commanders to administratively discipline troops without a court-martial. [1] : V-2 Punishment can range from reprimand to reduction in rank, correctional custody, loss of pay, extra duty or restrictions depending on rank of the imposing officer and receiving officer. [1] : V-2 The receipt of non-judicial punishment does not constitute a criminal conviction (it is equivalent to a civil action), but is often placed in the service record of the individual. The process for non-judicial punishment is governed by Part V of the Manual for Courts-Martial and by each service branch's regulations.
Non-judicial punishment proceedings are known by different terms among the services. In the Army and the Air Force, non-judicial punishment is referred to as Article 15; in the Marine Corps it is called being "NJP'd", being sent to "Office Hours", or satirically amongst the junior ranks, "Ninja Punched". [3] The Navy and the Coast Guard call non-judicial punishment captain's mast or admiral's mast, depending on the rank of the commanding officer.
Prior to imposition of NJP, the commander will notify the accused of the commander's intention to impose punishment, the nature of the misconduct alleged, supporting evidence, and a statement of the accused's rights under the UCMJ. [1] : V-2 All service members, except those embarked or attached to a vessel currently away from its homeport, have a right to refuse NJP and request a court-martial [1] : V-3 . If the accused does not accept the NJP, the NJP hearing is terminated and the commander must make the decision of whether to process the service member for court-martial. If the accused accepts NJP, he or she can choose to have a hearing or waive said right. [1] : V-3 . If a hearing proceeds, the accused may choose to be accompanied by a spokesperson. [1] : V-3 The accused may present evidence and witnesses to the commander. The commander must consider any information offered during the hearing, and must be personally convinced that the service member committed misconduct before imposing punishment.
Maximum penalties depend on the rank of the accused and that of the officer imposing punishment: [1] [4]
If the officer imposing punishment holds General Court Martial authority, or if the commanding officer is of the grade O-7 or greater(Generals in the Army & Air Force. Admirals in the Navy, U.S. Military Rank Insignia)
By Commanding Officers of the grades O-4 to O-6 (Majors to Colonels in the Army & Air Force. Lt. Commanders to Captains in the Navy, U.S. Military Rank Insignia)
By Commanding Officers of the grades O-1 to O-3 (Lieutenants to Captains in the Army & Air Force. Ensigns to Lieutenants in the Navy, U.S. Military Rank Insignia)
By Officers In Charge (OIC)
There are three types of non-judicial punishment commonly imposed.
Summary Article 15: (O-3 and below) commanders and commissioned OIC may impose:
Company Grade (O-3 or below) commanders may impose the above plus:
Field Grade (O-4 to O-6) may impose:
The punishments listed above may be combined (with certain limitations listed in the Manual for Courts-Martial, Part 5, Section 5(d)). For example, extra duties, restriction and forfeiture of pay, and reduction in grade could be imposed.
If the member considers the punishment to be unjust or to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed, he or she may appeal the NJP to a higher authority. This is usually the next officer in the chain of command. Upon considering the appeal, the higher authority may set aside the NJP, decrease the severity of the punishment, or may deny the appeal. They may not increase the severity of the punishment. [1] : V-1
Personnel are permitted to refuse NJP in favor of a court-martial; this might be done in cases where they do not feel their Commanding Officer will give them a fair hearing. [1] : V-2 But this option exposes them to a possible criminal court conviction. Navy and Marine Corps personnel assigned to or embarked aboard ship do not have the option of refusing NJP, nor can they appeal the decision of the officer imposing punishment; they may only appeal the severity of the punishment.
In naval tradition, mast is the traditional location of the non-judicial hearing under which a commanding officer studies and disposes of cases involving those in his command. In the United States Navy and U.S. Coast Guard, these proceedings take place under the authority of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
If the individual conducting the proceeding is either a captain, or a lower ranking officer (typically a commander or lieutenant commander) serving as commanding officer of a naval or coast guard vessel, an aviation squadron, or similar command afloat or ashore, then the proceeding is referred to as a captain's mast.
If an admiral is overseeing the mast, then the procedure is referred to as an admiral's mast or a flag mast. [5]
A captain's mast or admiral's mast is a procedure whereby the commanding officer must:
A captain's mast is not:
The term mast may also refer to when a captain or commanding officer makes him/herself available to hear concerns, complaints, or requests from the crew. Traditionally, on a naval vessel, the captain would stand at the main mast of that vessel when holding mast. The crew, who by custom did not speak with the captain, could speak to him directly at these times. It could also refer to the naval punishment of tying one to a mast and lashing them with a whip.
In modern times, a meritorious mast refers to the commanding officer taking this time to single out a member of the crew for praise and present written recognition of work well done. [6]
USS Greeneville is a Los Angeles-class nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN), and the only vessel in United States Navy history to be named after Greeneville, Tennessee. The contract to build the boat was awarded to Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company in Newport News, Virginia, on 14 December 1988, and her keel was laid down on 28 February 1992. She was launched on 17 September 1994, sponsored by Tipper Gore, and commissioned on 16 February 1996.
A court-martial or court martial is a military court or a trial conducted in such a court. A court-martial is empowered to determine the guilt of members of the armed forces subject to military law, and, if the defendant is found guilty, to decide upon punishment. In addition, courts-martial may be used to try prisoners of war for war crimes. The Geneva Conventions require that POWs who are on trial for war crimes be subject to the same procedures as would be the holding military's own forces. Finally, courts-martial can be convened for other purposes, such as dealing with violations of martial law, and can involve civilian defendants.
USS Stark (FFG-31) was the 23rd ship of the Oliver Hazard Perry class of guided-missile frigates and was named after Admiral Harold Rainsford Stark (1880–1972). Ordered from Todd Pacific Shipyards in Seattle, Washington, on 23 January 1978, Stark was laid down on 24 August 1979, launched on 30 May 1980, and commissioned on 23 October 1982. In 1987, an Iraqi jet fired two missiles at Stark, killing 37 U.S. sailors on board. Decommissioned on 7 May 1999, Stark was scrapped in 2006.
Military justice is the body of laws and procedures governing members of the armed forces. Many nation-states have separate and distinct bodies of law that govern the conduct of members of their armed forces. Some states use special judicial and other arrangements to enforce those laws, while others use civilian judicial systems. Legal issues unique to military justice include the preservation of good order and discipline, the legality of orders, and appropriate conduct for members of the military. Some states enable their military justice systems to deal with civil offenses committed by their armed forces in some circumstances.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is the foundation of the system of military justice of the armed forces of the United States. The UCMJ was established by the United States Congress in accordance with their constitutional authority, per Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that "The Congress shall have Power. .. to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces" of the United States.
The commanding officer (CO) or commander, or sometimes, if the incumbent is a general officer, commanding general (CG) or general officer commanding (GOC), is the officer in command of a military unit. The commanding officer has ultimate authority over the unit, and is usually given wide latitude to run the unit as they see fit, within the bounds of military law. In this respect, commanding officers have significant responsibilities, duties, and powers.
The Aberdeen Scandal was a military sexual assault scandal in 1996 at Aberdeen Proving Ground, a United States Army base in Maryland.
An administrative proceeding is a non-judicial determination of fault or wrongdoing and may include, in some cases, penalties of various forms. They are typically conducted by government or military institutions.
The Tailhook scandal was a military scandal in which United States (U.S.) Navy and U.S. Marine Corps aviation officers were alleged to have sexually assaulted up to 83 women and seven men, or otherwise engaged in "improper and indecent" conduct at the Las Vegas Hilton in Las Vegas, Nevada. The events took place at the 35th Annual Tailhook Association Symposium from September 5 to 8, 1991. The event was subsequently abbreviated as "Tailhook '91" in media accounts.
An Article 32 hearing is a proceeding under the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice, similar to that of a preliminary hearing in civilian law. Its name is derived from UCMJ section VII Article 32, which mandates the hearing.
Courts-martial of the United States are trials conducted by the U.S. military or by state militaries. Most commonly, courts-martial are convened to try members of the U.S. military for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). They can also be convened for other purposes, including military tribunals and the enforcement of martial law in an occupied territory. Federal courts-martial are governed by the rules of procedure and evidence laid out in the Manual for Courts-Martial, which contains the Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM), Military Rules of Evidence, and other guidance. State courts-martial are governed according to the laws of the state concerned. The American Bar Association has issued a Model State Code of Military Justice, which has influenced the relevant laws and procedures in some states.
The Articles of War are a set of regulations drawn up to govern the conduct of a country's military and naval forces. The first known usage of the phrase is in Robert Monro's 1637 work His expedition with the worthy Scot's regiment called Mac-keyes regiment etc. and can be used to refer to military law in general. In Swedish, the equivalent term Krigsartiklar, is first mentioned in 1556. However, the term is usually used more specifically and with the modern spelling and capitalisation to refer to the British regulations drawn up in the wake of the Glorious Revolution and the United States regulations later based on them.
A letter of reprimand is a US Department of Defense procedure involving a letter to an employee or service member from their superior that details the wrongful actions of the person and the punishment that can be expected. A Formal Letter of Reprimand is one in which a copy of the letter is kept in the personal service record of the individual.
Reduction in rank may refer to three separate concepts:
Glenn R. Brindel is a former United States Navy officer. He was the commanding officer of USS Stark and was in command when the ship was attacked and struck by two Exocet missiles in the Persian Gulf on May 17, 1987. The incident review board, led by Rear Admiral Grant Sharp, recommended he be court-martialed for his actions. However, he was relieved of command and given non-judicial punishment by Adm. Frank B. Kelso II, commander of the Atlantic fleet. According to the New York Times, in 1987 he received a letter of reprimand and elected to retire early. He had not served as a captain long enough to retire at that grade, so he had to retire at the rank of commander. The U.S. Naval Register, however, lists Brindel as retiring October 2, 1990, as a captain. 37 sailors were killed in the attack.
Half-pay (h.p.) was a term used in the British Army and Royal Navy of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries to refer to the pay or allowance an officer received when in retirement or not in actual service.
The military courts of the United Kingdom are governed by the Armed Forces Act 2006. The system set up under the Act applies to all three armed services: the Royal Navy (RN), the British Army, and the Royal Air Force (RAF), and replaces the three parallel systems that were previously in existence.
The main Offences against military law in the United Kingdom are set out in the Armed Forces Act 2006.
The Judge Advocate General's Corps, also known as JAG or JAG Corps, is the military justice branch or specialty of the United States Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, and Navy. Officers serving in the JAG Corps are typically called judge advocates.
Unlawful command influence (UCI) is a legal concept within American military law. UCI occurs when a person bearing "the mantle of command authority" uses or appears to use that authority to influence the outcome of military judicial proceedings. Military commanders typically exert significant control over their units, but under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) a commander must take a detached, quasi-judicial stance towards certain disciplinary proceedings such as a court-martial. Outside of certain formal actions authorized by the UCMJ, a commander using their authority to influence the outcome of a court-martial commits UCI. If UCI has occurred, the results of a court-martial may be legally challenged and in some cases overturned.
United States Military Judicial Authority | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authority |  | ||||||||||
| Standards | |||||||||||
| Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAG) |
| ||||||||||
| Non-judicial punishment | |||||||||||
| Court systems |
| ||||||||||