An official website of the United States government
A .mil website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
A lock (lock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Nonjudicial Punishment: October 2012

  • Published
  • By 379th Air Expeditionary Wing Judge Advocate Office
SOUTHWEST ASIA --  Nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice enables commanders to maintain good order and discipline in a fair and swift process without the negative implications for an Airman that are carried with a court-martial conviction.

An Airman who is offered nonjudicial punishment has the right to either accept the offer of nonjudicial punishment or to demand a trial by court-martial. By accepting nonjudicial punishment, an Airman is not admitting guilt to the offense(s) for which the Airman has been offered nonjudicial punishment; rather, the Airman is electing to allow the commander to decide whether the Airman is guilty and, if so, what the Airman's punishment should be. Potential punishments that a commander may issue include reduction in grade, forfeiture of pay, extra duty, restriction and a reprimand.

In October 2012, the following Airmen received nonjudicial punishment here:

1. A 379th Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron senior airman was offered nonjudicial punishment for conspiracy to commit larceny in violation of Article 81 of the UCMJ; failing to obey the prohibition on pornography as outlined in U.S. Air Forces Central Command General Order 1B in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ; extortion in violation of Article 127 of the UCMJ; and indecent language, invasion of privacy, and harassment in violation of Article 134 of the UCMJ. The senior airman was found guilty and received punishment of a reduction to airman basic, forfeiture of $745.00 pay per month for two months and a reprimand.

2. A 379th Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron senior airman was offered nonjudicial punishment for conspiracy to commit larceny in violation of Article 81 of the UCMJ, failing to obey the threshold rule and prohibition on pornography as outlined in U.S. Air Forces Central Command General Order 1B in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ, making false official statements in violation of Article 107 of the UCMJ, and obstruction of justice in violation of Article 134 of the UCMJ. The senior Airman was found guilty and received punishment of a reduction to airman and a reprimand.

3. A 379th Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron airman first class was offered nonjudicial punishment for failing to obey the threshold rule and prohibition on pornography as outlined in U.S. Air Forces Central Command General Order 1B in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ. The airman first class was found guilty and received punishment of a suspended reduction to airman, forfeiture of $225.00 pay per month for two months and a reprimand.

4. A 379th Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron airman first class was offered nonjudicial punishment for failing to obey the threshold rule as outlined in U.S. Air Forces Central Command General Order 1B in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ. The airman first class was found guilty and received punishment of a suspended reduction to airman, forfeiture of $225.00 pay and a reprimand.

5. A 379th Expeditionary Force Support Squadron technical sergeant was offered nonjudicial punishment for making a false official statement in violation of Article 107 of the UCMJ. The technical sergeant was found guilty and received punishment of a suspended reduction to staff sergeant and a reprimand.

6. A 379th Expeditionary Logistics Readiness Squadron senior master sergeant was offered nonjudicial punishment for sexual harassment in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ, maltreatment of subordinates in violation of Article 93 of the UCMJ, assault in violation of Article 128 of the UCMJ, and indecent language in violation of Article 134 of the UCMJ. The senior master sergeant was found guilty and received punishment of a reduction to master sergeant and a reprimand.

7. A 379th Expeditionary Logistics Readiness Squadron senior airman was offered nonjudicial punishment for failing to obey the threshold rule as outlined in U.S. Air Forces Central Command General Order 1B in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ. The senior airman was found guilty and received punishment of a suspended reduction to airman first class, forfeiture of $250.00 pay per month for two months, twenty-one days of extra duty and a reprimand.

8. A 64th Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron staff sergeant was offered nonjudicial punishment for failing to obey the threshold rule as outlined in U.S. Air Forces Central Command General Order 1B in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ. The staff sergeant was found guilty and received punishment of a suspended reduction to senior airman and a reprimand.

9. A 64th Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron senior airman was offered nonjudicial punishment for failing to obey the threshold rule as outlined in U.S. Air Forces Central Command General Order 1B in violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ. The senior airman was found guilty and received punishment of a suspended reduction to airman first class and a reprimand.

For more information on nonjudicial punishment, refer to AFI 51-202, Nonjudicial Punishment, and Part V of the Manual for Courts-Martial.