Article 15

---

Home | Star Fleet Library | BuPers | SF Engineering | SF Intelligence | SF JAG | SF Marine Corps | SF Medical | SF Records | SF Sciences
UFP Dept. of Colonial Affairs | UFP Educational, Scientific and Cultural Org.

---

Star Fleet Nonjudicial Disciplinary Procedures
Article 15 / Captain's Mast

INTRODUCTORY NOTES

Gender/pronoun note: As the United Federation of Planets recognizes the vast diversity of genders across member worlds, with regards to brevity this document will default to “they, their or them” as all-encompassing neutral pronouns, and is not meant to exclude any gender.

This document serves as a guide for Officers in Charge and Commanding Officers when faced with the task of executing Star Fleet Nonjudicial Disciplinary Procedures, and is not meant to replace the Star Fleet Uniform Code of Military Justice as a whole.

DEFINITIONS

Nonjudicial discipline (NJD) refers to certain limited disciplinary measures that can be imposed for minor offenses by a commanding officer or officer in charge to members of their command. In Star Fleet, nonjudicial discipline proceedings are referred to as “Captain's mast.” In the Star Fleet Marine Corps, the process is called “office hours.” Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (SFUCMJ) provides the basic law concerning nonjudicial disciplinary procedures. As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that NJD is not a criminal trial, but rather an administrative proceeding, primarily corrective in nature, designed to deal with minor disciplinary infractions without the stigma of a court-martial conviction. As a result, the standard of proof applicable at Article 15 hearings is a “preponderance of the evidence” vice “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

In Star Fleet and the SF Marine Corps, nonjudicial discipline may be imposed by an “Officer in Charge.” The Term “Officer in Charge” does not mean an “OIC,” as a job title, but rather a specific officer in the chain of command immediately in charge of the individual(s) facing NJD. “Mast,” and “office hours” are procedures whereby the commanding officer or officer in charge may:
(1) Make inquiry into the facts surrounding minor offenses allegedly committed by a member of his command;
(2) afford the accused a hearing as to such offenses; and
(3) dispose of such charges by dismissing the charges, imposing disciplinary measures under the provisions of Art. 15, SFUCMJ, or referring the case to a court-martial. NJD is not a trial, and the imposition of disciplinary measures at NJD does not constitute a conviction. While nonjudicial discipline is administrative in nature, it can still have a profoundly negative impact on a Star Fleet member’s career.

Offenses Punishable Under Article 15, SFUCMJ

To initiate Article 15 action, a commander must have been presented evidence that establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that a member under their command committed an offense under the SFUCMJ. Article 15, SFUCMJ gives a commanding officer power to impose disciplinary procedures on individuals for minor offenses.

The term “minor offense” means misconduct normally not more serious than that usually handled at summary court-martial (where the maximum disciplinary measure is thirty days' confinement). These sources also indicate that the nature of the offense and the circumstances surrounding its commission are also factors that should be considered in determining whether an offense is minor in nature. The term “minor offense” ordinarily does not include misconduct which, if tried by general court-martial, could be punished by a dishonorable discharge or confinement for more than one year. Star Fleet, however, has taken the position that the final determination as to whether an offense is “minor” is within the sound discretion of the commanding officer. Note, Article 43 of the SFUCMJ prohibits the imposition of NJD more than two years after the commission of the offense.

STAR FLEET MEMBER RIGHTS AT NON-JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES

Right of the Accused to Demand Trial by Court-Martial

Except in the case of a person attached to or embarked in a vessel, an accused service member may demand trial by court-martial in lieu of NJD. The key time factor in determining whether or not a person has the right to demand trial is the time of the imposition of the NJD, and not the time of the commission of the offense. The Star Fleet member should be informed of their right to demand trial by court-martial in lieu of NJD; of the maximum disciplinary measure which could be imposed at NJD; of the fact that, should they demand trial by court-martial, the charges could be referred for trial by summary, special, or general court-martial; of the fact that they could not be tried at summary court-martial over their objection; and that, at a special or general court-martial, they would have the right to be represented by counsel.

Hearing Rights

If the accused does not demand trial by court-martial within a reasonable time after having been advised of their rights (usually 3 workdays unless the commander grants an extension), or if the right to demand court-martial is not applicable, the accused shall be entitled to appear personally before the commanding officer for the NJD hearing. At such hearing, the accused is entitled to:
(1) be informed of their rights under Art. 31, SFUCMJ (self- incrimination);
(2) be accompanied by a spokesperson provided by or arranged for by the member, and the proceedings need not be unduly delayed to permit the presence of the spokesperson
(3) be informed of the evidence against them relating to the offense;
(4) be allowed to examine all evidence upon which the commanding officer will rely in deciding whether and the degree of disciplinary procedures to impose;
(5) present matters in defense, extenuation, and mitigation, orally, in writing, or both;
(6) have witnesses present, including those adverse to the accused, upon request, if their statements will be relevant, and if they are reasonably available. A witness is reasonably available if their appearance will not unduly delay the proceedings, or, in the case of a military witness, will not necessitate their being excused from other classified, critical or war-time duties; and
(7) have the proceedings open to the public unless the commanding officer determines that the proceedings should be closed for good cause or matters of Star Fleet security. No special facility arrangements need to be made by the commander. Even if the accused does not wish the proceedings to be open to the public, the commander may open them anyway at their discretion. In most cases, the commander will open them partially, and have present relevant members of the command (XO, first sergeant, supervisor, etc.)

Waiver of Order to Appear

The SFUCMJ provides that, if the accused waives their right to personally appear before the commanding officer, they may choose to submit written matters for consideration by the commanding officer prior to the imposition of NJD. Should the accused make such an election, they should be informed of their right to remain silent and that any matters so submitted may be used against them in a trial by court-martial. Notwithstanding the accused's expressed desire to waive their right to personally appear at the NJD hearing, they may be ordered to attend the hearing if the officer imposing NJD desires their presence.

Personal Representative

The burden of obtaining such a representative is on the accused. As a practical matter, they are free to choose anyone they want — a lawyer or a non lawyer, an officer or an enlisted person. This freedom of the accused to choose a representative does not obligate the command to provide lawyer counsel, and current regulations do not create a right to counsel to the extent that such a right exists at court-martial. The accused may be represented by any lawyer who is willing and able to appear at the hearing. While a lawyer's workload may preclude the lawyer from appearing, a blanket rule that no lawyers will be available to appear at Article 15 hearings would appear to contravene the spirit if not the letter of the law. It is likewise doubtful that one can lawfully be ordered to represent the accused. It is fair to say that the accused can have anyone who is able and willing to appear on their behalf. While a command does not have to provide a personal representative, it should help the accused obtain the representative they want. In this connection, if the accused desires a personal representative, they must be allowed a reasonable time to obtain someone.

Non-Adversarial Proceeding

The presence of a personal representative is not meant to create an adversarial proceeding. Rather, the commanding officer is still under an obligation to pursue the truth. In this connection, they control the course of the hearing and should not allow the proceedings to deteriorate into a partisan adversarial atmosphere.

Witnesses

When the hearing involves controverted questions of fact pertaining to the alleged offenses, witnesses shall be called to testify if they are present on the same star ship or base or are otherwise. It should be noted, however, that no authority exists to subpoena civilian witnesses for an NJD proceeding.

Burden of Proof

The commanding officer or officer in charge must decide that the accused committed the offenses(s) by a preponderance of the evidence, that present fact(s) beyond a reasonable doubt the accused engaged in the misconduct.

Findings

After consideration of all the factors, the commander makes their decision/findings. These include:
(1) dismissal with or without warning. This action normally is taken if the commanding officer is not convinced by the evidence that the accused is guilty of an offense, or decides that no disciplinary measure is appropriate in light of his past record and other circumstances. Dismissal, whether with or without a warning, is not considered NJD, nor is it considered an acquittal;
(2) referral to SF Judge Advocate General's Corps for a court-martial, or pretrial investigation under Article 32, SFUCMJ;
(3) postponement of action (pending further investigation or for other good cause, such as a pending critical mission or war-time engagement); or
(4) imposition of NJD.

AUTHORIZED DISCIPLINARY MEASURES AT NJD

The maximum imposable disciplinary measure in any Article 15, SFUCMJ, proceeding is limited by several factors, including the grade of the officer imposing NJD, whether the officer imposing NJD is a “commanding officer” or “officer in charge,” whether the accused in an officer or enlisted person, and whether the accused in attached to or embarked in a vessel. The maximum disciplinary measure limitations discussed below apply to each NJD action, and not to each offense. Note also, there is a policy that all known offenses of which the accused is suspected should ordinarily be considered at a single article 15 hearing.

MAXIMUM DISCIPLINARY MEASURES AND LIMITATIONS

Officer Accused

If disciplinary measures are imposed by officers in the following grades, the limits are as indicated below.

By officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction or a flag/general officer in command, or designated principal assistant:

(1) Punitive admonition or reprimand.
(2) Arrest in quarters: not more than 30 days.
(3) Restriction to limits: not more than 60 days.

By officers O-4 to O-6: (1) Admonition or reprimand.
(2) Restriction: not more than 30 days.

By officers O-1 to O-3: (1) Admonition or reprimand.
(2) Restriction: not more than 15 days.

By officer in charge: none (Only a “Commanding Officer” can impose article 15 disciplinary measure on an officer).

Enlisted Accused

By commanding officers in grades O-4 and above

(1) Admonition or reprimand.
(2) Confinement on diminished rations: imposable only on grades E-3 and below, attached to or embarked in a vessel, for not more than 3 days.
(3) Correctional custody: not more than 30 days.
(4) Reduction: one grade, not imposable on E-7 and above (Star Fleet) and above (Marine Corps).
(5) Extra duties: not more than 45 days.
(6) Restriction: not more than 60 days.

By commanding officers in grades O-3 and below or any commissioned officer in charge

(1) Admonition or reprimand.
(2) Confinement on bread and water / diminished rations: not more than 3 days and only on grades E-3 and below attached to or embarked in a vessel.
(3) Correctional custody: not more than 7 days.
(4) Reduction: to next inferior pay grade; not imposable on E-7 and above (Star Fleet) or E-6 and above (Marine Corps), if rank from which demoted is within the promotion authority of the OIC.
(5) Extra duties: not more than 14 days.
(6) Restriction: not more than 14 days.

NATURE OF THE ARTICLE 15, SFUCMJ DISCIPLINARY MEASURES

Admonition and Reprimand

Punitive censure for officers must be in writing, although it may be either oral or written for enlisted personnel. It should be noted that reprimand is considered more severe than admonition. Arrest in quarters. The disciplinary measure is imposable only on officers. It is a moral restraint, as opposed to a physical restraint. It is similar to restriction, but has much narrower limits. The limits of arrest are set by the officer imposing the disciplinary measure and may extend beyond quarters. The term “quarters” includes military and private residences. The officer may be required to perform their regular duties as long as they do not involve the exercise of authority over subordinates.

Restriction

Restriction also is a form of moral restraint. Its severity depends upon the breadth of the limits as well as the duration of the restriction. If restriction limits are drawn too tightly, there is a real danger that they may amount to either confinement or arrest in quarters, which in the former case cannot be imposed as NJD and in the latter case is not an authorized disciplinary measure for enlisted persons. As a practical matter, restriction means that an accused will be restricted to the limits of the base except where the use of recreational facilities might be further restricted. Restriction and arrest are normally imposed by a written order detailing the limits thereof and usually require the accused to log in at certain specified times during the restraint.Star Fleet regulations provide that an officer placed in the status of arrest or restriction shall not be confined to their room unless the safety or the discipline of the ship requires such action.

Extra Duties

Various types of duties may be assigned, in addition to routine duties, as disciplinary measure. Part V, para. 5c(6), MCM (2435 ed.), however, prohibits extra duties which constitute a known safety or health hazard, which constitute cruel and unusual disciplinary measure, or which are not sanctioned by the customs of the service involved. Additionally, when imposed upon a petty or noncommissioned officer (E-4 and above), the duties cannot be demeaning to their rank or position.

Reduction in Grade

In Star Fleet and Marine Corps, regulations limit reduction in grade to one grade only under NJD.

Correctional Custody

Correctional custody is a form of physical restraint during either duty or non-duty hours, or both, and may include extra duty. Awardees may perform military duty, but not watches, and cannot bear arms or exercise authority over subordinates. Time spent in correctional custody is not “lost time.” In the Star Fleet and Marine Corps, correctional custody cannot be imposed on grades E-4 and above.

Confinement on Diminished Rations

The disciplinary measure involves physical confinement and is tantamount to solitary confinement because contact is allowed only with authorized personnel. A medical officer must first certify in writing that the accused will suffer no serious injury and that the place of confinement will not be injurious to the accused. This disciplinary measure cannot be imposed upon grades E-4 and above. If disciplinary measure is imposed at NJD, the commanding officer is required to ensure that the accused is advised of their right to appeal. A person punished under article 15 may appeal the imposition of such disciplinary measure through proper channels to the appropriate appeal authority.

NONJUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY MEASURE APPEALS

Appeals must be submitted in writing within five calendar days of the imposition of NJD, or the right to appeal shall be waived in the absence of good cause shown. The appeal period begins to run from the date of the imposition of NJD, even though all or any part of the disciplinary measure imposed is suspended.

If it appears to the accused that good cause may exist which would make it impracticable or extremely difficult to prepare and submit the appeal within the 5 calendar day period, the accused should immediately advise the officer who imposed the disciplinary measure of the perceived problems and request an appropriate extension of time. The officer imposing NJD shall determine whether good cause was shown and shall advise the accused whether an extension of time will be permitted.

There are only two grounds for appeal: the disciplinary measure(s) imposed were unjust or the disciplinary measure(s) were disproportionate to the offense(s) committed.

Unjust disciplinary measure exists when the evidence is insufficient to prove the accused committed the offense(s); when the statute of limitations prohibits lawful disciplinary measure; or when any other fact, including a denial of substantial rights, calls into question the validity of the disciplinary measure.

Disciplinary measure(s) are disproportionate if it is, in the judgment of the reviewer, too severe for the offense committed. An offender who believes their disciplinary measure(s) are too severe thus appeals on the ground of disproportionate disciplinary measure, whether or not their letter artfully states the ground in precise terminology. Note, however, that a disciplinary measure may be legal but excessive or unfair considering circumstances such as: the nature of the offense; the absence of aggravating circumstances; the prior record of the offender; and any other circumstances in extenuation and mitigation.

The grounds for appeal need not be stated artfully in the accused's appeal letter, and the reviewer may have to deduce the appropriate ground implied in the letter. Inartful draftsmanship or improper addressees or other administrative irregularities are not grounds for refusing to forward the appeal to the reviewing authority. If any commander in the chain of addressees notes administrative mistakes, they should be corrected, if material, in that commander's endorsement which forwards the appeal. Thus, if an accused does not address his letter to all appropriate commanders in the chain of command, the commander who notes the mistake should merely readdress and forward the appeal. They should not send the appeal back to the accused for redrafting since the appeal should be forwarded promptly to the reviewing authority.

The officer who imposed the disciplinary measure should not, by endorsement, seek to “defend” against the allegations of the appeal but should, where appropriate, explain the rationalization of the evidence. For example, the officer may have chosen to believe one witness' account of the facts while disbelieving another witness' recollection of the same facts and this should be included in the endorsement. This officer may properly include any facts relevant to the case as an aid to the reviewing authority, but should avoid irrelevant character assassination of the accused. Finally, any errors made in the decision to impose NJD or in the amount of disciplinary measure imposed should be corrected by this officer and the corrective action noted in the forwarding endorsement. Even though corrective action is taken, the appeal must still be forwarded to the reviewer.

Procedural Errors

Errors of procedure do not invalidate disciplinary measures unless the error or errors deny a substantial right or do substantial injury to such right. Thus, if an offender was not properly warned of their right to remain silent at the hearing, but made no statement, they have not suffered a substantial injury. If an offender was not informed that they had a right to refuse NJD, and they had such a right, then the error amounts to a denial of a substantial right.

Evidentiary Errors

Strict rules of evidence do not apply at NJD hearings. Evidentiary errors not amounting to insufficient evidence will not normally invalidate disciplinary measures.

Authorized Appellate Action

In acting on an appeal, or even in cases in which no appeal has been filed, the superior authority may exercise the same power with respect to the disciplinary measure imposed as the officer who imposed the disciplinary measure. Thus, the reviewing authority may:

(1) approve the disciplinary measure in whole;
(2) mitigate, remit, or set aside the disciplinary measure to correct errors;
(3) mitigate, remit, or suspend (in whole or in part) the disciplinary measure for reasons of clemency;
(4) dismiss the case (If this is done, the reviewer must direct the restoration of all rights, privileges, and property lost by the accused by virtue of the imposition of disciplinary measure.); or
(5) authorize a rehearing where there are substantial procedural errors not amounting to a finding of insufficient evidence to impose NJD.

At the rehearing, however, the disciplinary measure imposed may be no more severe than that imposed during the original proceedings, unless other offenses which occurred subsequent to the date of the original proceeding are added to the original offenses.

If the accused, while not attached to or embarked in a vessel, waived his right to demand trial by court-martial at the original proceedings, he may not assert this right as to those same offenses at the rehearing but may assert the right as to any new offenses at the rehearing. Upon completion of action by the reviewing authority, the service member shall be promptly notified of the result.

CLEMENCY AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

Clemency action is a reduction in the severity of disciplinary measures done at the discretion of the officer authorized to take such action for whatever reason deemed sufficient. Remedial corrective action is a reduction in the severity of disciplinary measures or other action taken by proper authority to correct some defect in the NJD proceeding and to offset the adverse impact of the error on the accused's rights.

The following officials have authority to take clemency action or remedial corrective action:

(1) the officer who initially imposed the NJD;
(2) the authority who initially imposed the NJD (the office rather than the officer);
(3) the successor in command over the person issued disciplinary measures;
(4) the superior authority to whom an appeal from the disciplinary measure(s) would be forwarded, whether or not such an appeal has been made;
(5) the commanding officer or officer in charge of a unit, activity, or command to which the accused is properly transferred after the imposition of disciplinary measure by the first commander; and
(6) the successor in command of the latter.

The types of action that can be taken either as clemency or corrective action are setting aside, remission, mitigation, and suspension.

SETTING ASIDE DISCIPLINARY MEASURE(S)

This power has the effect of voiding the disciplinary measure(s) (or any part or amount thereof) and restoring the rights, privileges, and property lost to the accused by virtue of the disciplinary measure(s) imposed. This action should be reserved for compelling circumstances where the commander feels a clear injustice has occurred. This means, normally, that the commander believes the disciplinary measure(s) of the accused was clearly a mistake.

Remission

This action relates to the unexecuted parts of the disciplinary measure; that is, those parts which have not been completed. This action relieves the accused from having to complete his disciplinary measure, though he may have partially completed it. Rights, privileges, and property lost by virtue of executed portions of disciplinary measure are not restored, nor is the disciplinary measure voided as in the case when it is set aside. The expiration of the current enlistment or term of service of the service member automatically remits any unexecuted disciplinary measure imposed under Article 15.

Mitigation

Generally, this action also relates to the unexecuted portions of disciplinary measure. Mitigation of disciplinary measure is a reduction in the quantity or quality of the disciplinary measure imposed; in no event may disciplinary measure imposed be increased so as to be more severe.

Without increasing quantity, the following reductions by mitigation may be taken:

(1) arrest in quarters to restriction;
(2) confinement on diminished rations to correctional custody;
(3) correctional custody or confinement on diminished rations to extra duties or restriction or both (to run concurrently); or
(4) extra duties to restriction.

Reduction in grade. Reduction in grade, even though executed, may be mitigated. The amount of forfeiture can be no greater than that which could have been imposed by the mitigating commander had he initially imposed disciplinary measure. This mitigation may be done only within four months after the date of execution.

SOURCE(S) USED

Adapted to Star Fleet/SF Marine Corps from 10 U.S. Code § 815 - Art. 15. Commanding officer’s non-judicial punishment.

UPDATE HISTORY

350930 Added SFJAG logo, section headers and TOC. Michael Dailey
350904 Adapted & created by Michael Dailey