Law Offices of James Culp & Timothy Litka, LLP | Worldwide Representation | Call now for a FREE Consultation - Available 24/7 (888) 246-1515
Law Offices of James Culp & Timothy Litka, LLP Home Military Attorney Profiles Know Your Rights Recent Results In The News Contact Us
Military attorneys for the U.S. Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard
Practice Areas
Courts Martial
Courts Martial Appeals
Correction of Military Records
Discharge Upgrade Requests
Administrative Discharge Hearings
Parole and Clemency
Veterans Administration Claims
Claims Against Federal Government

Client Testimonials

NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT

Command Leadership Tool.  Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) is a leadership tool providing military commanders a prompt and essential means of maintaining good order and discipline.  NJP proceedings may be known by different terms among the Services, such as “Article 15”, “Office Hours” or “Captain’s Mast”, but the purpose of NJP, and for the most part its procedures, are common among the Services.

For Minor Offenses.  NJP is used to discipline members for minor violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and serves to correct misconduct without attaching the stigma of a court-martial conviction to the member.  The Manual for Courts-Martial defines a minor offense for NJP purposes as “ordinarily an offense which the maximum sentence imposable would not include a dishonorable discharge or confinement for longer than one year if tried by a general court-martial.”  NJP is a disciplinary measure more serious than administrative action (e.g. a letter of reprimand), but less serious than trial by court-martial.

Article 15, UCMJ, And Regulations
.
  NJP is permitted by Article 15, UCMJ (Section 815 of Title 10, United States Code) and is governed by Part V of the Manual for Courts-Martial and by service regulations.  Prior to imposition of NJP, a service member must first be notified by the commander of the nature of the misconduct of which he or she is accused, of the evidence supporting the accusation, and of the commander’s intent to impose NJP.  The member may then be allowed to consult with a defense counsel to determine whether to consent to a NJP proceeding, or to refuse NJP and demand instead a trial by court-martial.  The major difference among the services with regard to NJP is that service members attached to or embarked in a vessel may not refuse imposition of NJP. 

Right To Counsel for Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP).  The statute governing NJP (Section 815 of Title 10, United States Code) does not create a right for service members to consult with counsel after being notified of the commander's intent to dispose of an allegation by NJP.  The services have different regulatory policies regarding whether service members have the absolute right to consult with counsel.  These regulations differ based on the unique concerns of each of the services in balancing the need to maintain discipline and protections for service members.  Air Force personnel have an absolute right to consult with a defense counsel prior to determining whether to accept NJP proceedings or demand trial by court-martial for all NJP.  Army personnel have the right to consult with a defense counsel, except when the commander is utilizing Summarized NJP Proceedings.  Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard personnel do not have a right to consult with counsel prior to NJP, however, commanders from those services strongly encourage consultation with counsel, subject to the availability of counsel, the delay involved, or operational commitments or military exigencies.

Right to Reject or Turn Down NJP.  Consenting to participation in a non judicial punishment proceeding is not an admission of guilt.  By accepting, the accused declines to exercise the right to demand trial by court-martial regarding the offenses alleged.  If an accused demands trial when presented with a proposed NJP action, the commander is thereafter prohibited from going forward with nonjudicial punishment.  Prior to imposing NJP, the commander will hold a hearing at which the member may be present.  The member may also have a spokesperson attend the hearing, may present evidence to the commander, and may request that the commander hear from certain witnesses.  The commander must consider any information offered during the hearing, and must be personally convinced that the member actually committed misconduct before imposing punishment.  Naval and Marine Personnel aboard ship do not have the right to turn down or reject NJP proceedings.

Permissible Punishments.  Permissible punishments for enlisted personnel can include such actions as reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay (up to ½ of one month’s pay per month for two months), restriction to base or to the ship (up to 60 days), extra duties, correctional custody (up to 30 days), and a reprimand.  For officers, permissible punishments can include forfeiture of pay (up to ½ of one month’s pay per month for two months), restriction to base or to the ship (up to 60 days), arrest in quarters (up to 30 days), and a reprimand.  The actual maximum punishment under the circumstances depends upon the rank of the commander who imposes the punishment.  Higher-ranking commanders may impose greater punishments than lower-ranking commanders may.

Right To Appeal.  If the member considers the punishment to be unjust or to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed, he or she may appeal to higher authority.  The appeal authority may set aside the punishment, decrease its severity, or deny the appeal, but may not increase the severity of the punishment.

Not A Conviction Record.  Receipt of a non judicial punishment does not constitute a criminal conviction.


High Profile Cases




Contact Us
Attorney Web Design The information on military courts-martial, military appeals, military parole and clemency, military boards of correction, military discharge upgrade, veterans administration claims, military administrative discharge hearings, and claims against the federal government under the federal tort claims act provided by this Military Defense Attorney /Law Firm website is for general information purposes only.  Nothing on this or associated pages, documents, comments, answers, e-mails, or other communications should be taken as legal advice from these military attorneys/lawyers, for any individual case or situation, civilian or military.  This information on this website is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing of this information does not constitute an attorney-client relationship with these U.S. military attorneys/lawyers for any civilian or military purpose, including military courts-martial, military appeals, military parole and clemency, military boards of correction, military discharge upgrade, veterans administration claims, military administrative discharge hearings, and claims against the federal government under the federal tort claims act.  The attorney-client relationship with these military attorneys/lawyers will be formed when this office sends out an engagement letter, you (the client) sign and return that letter with the fee agreed upon by you and this office for one or both of these military attorneys/lawyers to represent you as your military attorney/lawyer at locations worldwide such as Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Iraq, Quantico, Washington, DC, Fort Drum, Fort Stewart, Fort Lewis, Camp Pendleton, Camp LeJune, Schofield Barracks, Norfolk Naval Station, Fort Sam Houston, Fort Bliss, Germany, Korea, Iraq or Afghanistan.  The civilian military defense attorneys/lawyers of this firm do not discriminate amongst the U.S. armed services and are prepared to represent U.S. military servicemen and servicemen from the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and U.S. Coast Guard.

16238 Highway 620    Suite F-397    Austin, TX 78717    Toll Free: (800) 246-1515