Hazing in the Military: UCMJ Articles, Penalties, and Discharge

Hazing in the military carries UCMJ charges and punishments that range from an administrative letter of reprimand to a dishonorable discharge with forfeiture of all pay and up to three years of confinement. There is no single article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice labeled “hazing.” Instead, prosecutors charge the conduct under whichever punitive article fits, and serious incidents often draw multiple charges at once.

What Conduct Triggers Charges

DoD Instruction 1020.03 defines hazing as conduct by a service member or DoD employee, without a legitimate military purpose but connected to military service, that physically or psychologically harms another service member or creates a risk of such harm. The conduct is typically tied to joining, maintaining membership in, or changing status within a unit.¹ Physical contact is not required. Verbal berating, written humiliation, and psychological pressure all qualify.

Specific examples the DoD lists include forced consumption of food, alcohol, drugs, or other substances; branding, tattooing, shaving, greasing, painting, or duct-taping another person; pressing objects such as insignia, badges, or wings into someone’s skin (commonly called “tacking on”); oral or written berating meant to belittle; and malicious pranks designed to degrade. The list is not exhaustive. Any conduct meeting the general definition can be treated as hazing.¹

One point catches many service members off guard. The victim’s consent is not a defense. DoD policy states plainly that a service member may be held responsible for hazing “even if there was actual or implied consent from the victim and regardless of the grade or rank, status, or Service of the victim.”¹ A junior member who “volunteers” for an initiation ritual has not given anyone legal cover.

The Four UCMJ Articles Used to Charge Hazing

Most hazing prosecutions rely on one or more of the following punitive articles.

Article 92 (failure to obey order or regulation). Because DoD instructions and branch-specific orders prohibit hazing, engaging in it violates a lawful general regulation. This is the most common charging vehicle for hazing that does not involve serious physical injury.²

Article 93 (cruelty and maltreatment). Applies when the accused holds authority over the victim and subjects them to cruel or oppressive treatment. This article fits rank-on-rank hazing, where a senior member mistreats someone under their orders.³

Article 128 (assault). When hazing involves hitting, kicking, choking, or any other physical attack, assault charges apply. Aggravated assault charges attach if the victim suffers serious bodily harm or a weapon is involved.⁴

Article 134 (the general article). A catch-all for conduct that undermines good order and discipline or brings discredit upon the armed forces. Prosecutors use it when the hazing does not neatly fit another article but clearly harms the military community.⁵

A single incident can trigger charges under more than one article. Someone who orders a subordinate to drink excessively and then strikes them could face charges under Articles 92, 93, and 128 simultaneously.

The Punishment Ladder

Consequences fall into two tracks, administrative and punitive, with the choice depending on severity and the command’s judgment.

Administrative Actions

For lower-level incidents, a commander can impose measures that do not require a formal legal proceeding but still damage a career. These include formal letters of reprimand entered into the service member’s permanent file, reduction in rank, and negative performance evaluations. Any of these can effectively end promotion prospects and lead to involuntary separation at the next retention board.

Non-Judicial Punishment

Non-judicial punishment, commonly called an Article 15, lets a commanding officer impose penalties without convening a court-martial. Possible penalties include forfeiture of pay, extra duties, restriction to a designated area, and reduction in grade. NJP handles offenses that warrant more than a counseling statement but less than a criminal trial.

Court-Martial

Serious hazing cases go to court-martial, which functions as a criminal trial. The military uses three types, summary, special, and general, with escalating maximum sentences. A conviction for cruelty and maltreatment under Article 93 at a general court-martial carries a maximum sentence of a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for up to three years.³ When hazing involves aggravated assault or other serious offenses, the maximum punishment follows the more severe article charged, potentially resulting in longer confinement.

What a Punitive Discharge Costs After Service

A punitive discharge follows a service member into civilian life in ways most people do not fully appreciate until it happens. A dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge issued at a general court-martial automatically bars the veteran from nearly all VA benefits, including healthcare, education benefits under the GI Bill, home loan guarantees, and disability compensation. The only exception is the right to convert existing military life insurance.⁶

A bad-conduct discharge from a special court-martial carries a narrower penalty. It bars VA healthcare for any condition that was not incurred during a prior honorably completed period of service. The VA may still grant a favorable character-of-service determination in limited cases, opening the door to a disability pension or vocational rehabilitation, but not to healthcare.⁶ Beyond the VA, a punitive discharge complicates civilian employment, security clearances, and firearm ownership in some jurisdictions.

Leaders Face Their Own Charges

Accountability does not stop with the person who carried out the act. Under Article 92, a commander or NCO who knew hazing was occurring, or should have known, and failed to stop it can be charged with dereliction of duty.² The duty to prevent hazing comes from regulations like Army Regulation 600-20 and equivalent service-level policies, which impose affirmative obligations on leaders at every echelon.

Negligence is enough. The prosecution needs to show the leader had a duty to act, knew or reasonably should have known about the hazing, and failed to intervene. A platoon sergeant who turns a blind eye to initiation rituals is legally exposed alongside the person conducting them, though the charges and punishments may differ.

The Five-Year Window

Hazing charges must generally be brought within five years of the offense. Under Article 43 of the UCMJ, the clock starts on the date of the conduct and stops when sworn charges are received by an officer with summary court-martial authority.⁷ Certain periods do not count against the deadline, including time the accused spent AWOL, fleeing from justice, outside U.S. jurisdiction, or in the custody of civilian authorities.

Service Academies Have Separate Rules

If the conduct happened at a service academy, additional statutes apply on top of the regular UCMJ articles. At the Naval Academy, federal law defines hazing as “any unauthorized assumption of authority by a midshipman whereby another midshipman suffers or is exposed to any cruelty, indignity, humiliation, hardship, or oppression.” A midshipman can be dismissed for hazing, though not for a single act unless a court-martial issues the sentence.⁸

West Point operates under a nearly identical statute. A cadet dismissed for hazing cannot be reappointed to the Corps of Cadets and is ineligible for a commission in any branch of the armed forces until two years after the graduation of their original class.⁹ The Naval Academy imposes the same two-year bar on dismissed midshipmen.

1
Department of Defense. DoD Instruction 1020.03 – Harassment Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces
2
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 892 – Art. 92. Failure to Obey Order or Regulation
3
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 893 – Art. 93. Cruelty and Maltreatment
4
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 928 – Art. 128. Assault
5
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 934 – Art. 134. General Article
6
JAGCNet. Model Instruction Regarding Eligibility for Benefits Administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs
7
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 843 – Art. 43. Statute of Limitations
8
GovInfo. 10 USC 6964 – Hazing: Definition; Prohibition
9
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 7452 – Cadets: Hazing