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.

The Justice Files: Nonjudicial Punishment for August 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 August 2012, the following Airmen received nonjudicial punishment here:

1. An 8th Expeditionary Air Mobility Squadron staff sergeant was offered nonjudicial punishment for dereliction of duty in performing aircraft maintenance 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.

2. A 379th Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron senior airman was offered nonjudicial punishment for assault of a noncommissioned officer in violation of Article 128 of the UCMJ. The senior airman was found guilty and received punishment of a suspended reduction to airman first class, forfeiture of $300 pay and a reprimand.

3. An 8th EAMS senior airman was offered nonjudicial punishment for failing to abide by a lawful general regulation, the local alcohol policy, 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.

4. A 379th Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron airman first class was offered nonjudicial punishment for sleeping while posted as a sentinel in violation of Article 113 of the UCMJ. The airman first class was found guilty and received punishment of a reduction to airman and a reprimand.

5. A 379th ECES airman first class was offered nonjudicial punishment for failing to obey a lawful general order, 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 pay 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.