Military Punishment: From Article 15 to the Death Penalty

Military punishment in the United States runs on a ladder set by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and a commander facing misconduct chooses which rung to use. At the bottom sit administrative measures like counseling, extra training, and letters of reprimand, none of which are criminal. Above those is nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, where a commander can impose extra duty, restriction, forfeiture of pay, and reduction in rank without a trial. Above that are three levels of court-martial — summary, special, and general — which are criminal proceedings that can end in confinement, a punitive discharge, and, in the most serious cases, the death penalty.¹

The UCMJ, signed by President Truman on May 5, 1950, applies to every service member in every branch and replaced the separate disciplinary codes the Army, Navy, and Coast Guard had previously operated under.² The Manual for Courts-Martial, updated by presidential executive order, fills in the detailed rules and maximum punishments; the current edition took effect on January 1, 2024.³

Administrative and Corrective Measures

The mildest responses to misconduct are administrative. They include informal counseling, extra training, letters of reprimand, withdrawal of privileges, and, at the far end, involuntary separation from the service. None of these are criminal proceedings, none produce a conviction, and none are recorded as criminal matters.⁴

Corrective training is the most common of these. Under Army regulations, it must be rehabilitative, directly related to the deficiency being corrected, and oriented toward improving performance rather than punishing the service member.⁵ A soldier who appears in an improper uniform might be instructed on proper wear; a soldier in poor physical condition might be assigned additional conditioning drills. Training should be progressive, starting with the least restrictive measure, and supervised so it stays instructional.

The line between corrective training and improper punishment turns on intent and relevance. Actions designed to humiliate or harass cross the line, as do tasks unrelated to the deficiency. Assigning a clean-up detail because someone missed a formation would not qualify as legitimate corrective training.⁶ Legal offices are typically consulted to make sure a corrective plan does not amount to unlawful pretrial punishment under Article 13.

Nonjudicial Punishment Under Article 15

Article 15 of the UCMJ lets a commander resolve minor misconduct without a court-martial. It is not a judicial proceeding and does not produce a federal or state criminal conviction.⁷ The commander acts as both judge and jury, the rules of evidence do not apply, and the process is non-adversarial.

Accepting an Article 15 is not an admission of guilt. A service member may plead not guilty and present a defense. Except for members attached to or embarked on a vessel, any service member has the right to turn down Article 15 and demand trial by court-martial instead.⁸ That is a significant choice: the court-martial route brings full procedural protections but also the risk of a criminal conviction.

What a Commander Can Impose

The punishments available scale with the rank of the imposing commander. There are three tiers for enlisted personnel:

Summarized Article 15: up to 14 days of extra duty and 14 days of restriction, plus an oral reprimand or admonition. There is no right to consult defense counsel before responding at this level.⁷
Company grade Article 15: up to 14 days of extra duty, 14 days of restriction, forfeiture of seven days’ base pay, reduction of one grade for E-4 and below, and a reprimand.
Field grade Article 15, imposed by a major or above: up to 45 days of extra duty, 60 days of restriction (45 if combined with extra duty), forfeiture of half a month’s pay for two months, reduction to E-1 for those E-4 and below or one grade for E-5 and E-6, and a reprimand.

Officers can also be punished under Article 15, but only by a general court-martial convening authority or a flag or general officer. Officer punishments include up to 60 days of restriction, 30 days of arrest in quarters, and forfeiture of half a month’s pay for two months.⁸

Rights, Suspension, and Appeal

A service member facing an Article 15 has the right to consult with a military attorney (except at the summarized level), examine all evidence, present evidence and witnesses, make oral or written statements to the commander, and request either an open or closed hearing.⁹

After the decision, the service member has five calendar days to appeal to the next higher commander, who may reduce but never increase the punishment.⁷ If the appeal involves certain heavier punishments, such as more than 14 days of restriction or reduction from E-4 or above, a judge advocate must review the appeal before it is decided.⁸

Commanders may suspend a punishment for up to six months, which works like probation. If the service member stays out of trouble during that period, the suspended portion is cancelled. Once an Article 15 has been imposed, the service member cannot be punished again under Article 15 for the same offense.¹⁰

Courts-Martial

Serious offenses are handled by court-martial, a formal criminal proceeding that can produce a criminal conviction. Courts-martial are not standing courts; each is created by an individual convening order for a specific case.¹¹ There are three types, each handling progressively more serious conduct and carrying progressively heavier maximum punishments.

Summary Court-Martial

The lowest tier handles minor offenses and applies only to enlisted personnel. A single officer presides. The accused has no right to government-provided counsel, though a private attorney may be hired.¹ For service members at E-4 and below, maximum punishments are one month of confinement, 45 days of hard labor without confinement, 60 days of restriction, forfeiture of two-thirds pay for one month, and reduction to the lowest pay grade. For E-5 and above, confinement is not authorized, and reduction is limited to the next lower grade.¹²

Special Court-Martial

The intermediate level generally handles offenses comparable to civilian misdemeanors. A military judge presides, alone or with a panel of at least three members. A prosecutor and defense counsel both participate. For enlisted members, maximum punishments include reduction to E-1, forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for one year, confinement for 12 months, and a bad-conduct discharge.¹¹ Officers cannot be reduced in rank.

General Court-Martial

The highest trial court in the system is reserved for the most serious offenses, equivalent to civilian felonies. Charges must first go through an Article 32 preliminary investigation, a process similar to a civilian grand jury proceeding.¹ A military judge presides, with a panel of at least five members if the case is not tried by judge alone. Maximum punishments include reduction to E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for the maximum period authorized for the specific offense, and a dishonorable discharge for enlisted personnel or dismissal for officers.¹¹ In capital cases, the death penalty is available.

Punitive Discharges

The longest-lasting punishments the military can impose are punitive discharges, which only a court-martial can order. There are three forms, and each carries distinct consequences long after the service member leaves the military.

A bad-conduct discharge applies to enlisted members and follows a special or general court-martial conviction. The person loses military benefits, forfeits pay, and is not recognized as a veteran by the federal government. Some VA medical benefits may still be available through a petition process.¹³

A dishonorable discharge is the most severe form for enlisted members and typically accompanies convictions for offenses like murder, desertion, treason, or sexual assault. It results in the loss of VA benefits and civilian rights, bars federal employment, and prohibits firearm ownership under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). It can also disqualify the person from civilian government benefits like unemployment or federal student loans.¹³

A dismissal is the officer equivalent of a dishonorable discharge and can only follow a general court-martial. Officers cannot receive a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge, nor can they be reduced in rank. The practical consequences of a dismissal mirror those of a dishonorable discharge.¹³ Veterans who received a punitive discharge may petition their branch’s Discharge Review Board for an upgrade, with special consideration given for evidence of PTSD or for discharges previously based on sexual orientation.

The Death Penalty

Fifteen offenses under the UCMJ are punishable by death, although several, including desertion and disobeying a superior commissioned officer, are capital only during wartime.¹⁴ The last military execution took place on April 13, 1961, when Army Private John Bennett was hanged at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.¹⁵

Capital cases require a 12-member panel, and the verdict must be unanimous on four points: conviction of a death-eligible offense, proof of at least one aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt, a finding that aggravating factors substantially outweigh mitigating circumstances, and agreement that death is the appropriate sentence. Defendants cannot plead guilty in capital cases and cannot elect trial by judge alone.¹⁴ Death sentences receive automatic appellate review and ultimately require personal approval by the President, who holds sole authority to approve, commute, or remit the sentence.¹⁵

Four prisoners are currently on military death row, all held at the USDB in Fort Leavenworth. Ronald Gray was sentenced in 1988 for two murders, attempted murder, and three rapes; President George W. Bush approved his death warrant in 2008, but execution has been stayed by a federal court since November 2008. Hasan Akbar was sentenced in 2005 for the 2003 killing of two officers and attempted murder of sixteen others in Kuwait. Timothy Hennis was sentenced in 2010 for the 1985 murders of an Air Force captain’s wife and their two daughters. Nidal Hasan was sentenced in 2013 for the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, which killed 13 people and wounded 32; in September 2025, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth requested that President Donald Trump sign a death warrant for Hasan’s execution.¹⁵

How Military Punishment Differs From Civilian Punishment

Even when the underlying conduct looks the same as a civilian crime, the military process handles it differently in ways that affect the outcome.

Guilty pleas are narrower. The military does not allow nolo contendere or Alford pleas; a service member may plead guilty only if they actually believe they are guilty. Before accepting a guilty plea, the military judge must conduct a “providence inquiry,” questioning the accused on the record to establish a factual basis for the plea.¹⁶

Verdicts also work differently. While most civilian jurisdictions require unanimous jury verdicts, military general and special courts-martial can convict on a three-fourths concurrence of panel members. The exception is capital cases, which require a unanimous verdict of 12 members.¹⁶

The commander’s role has no civilian counterpart. Historically, the commander decided whether to prosecute, selected panel members, and conducted the first level of appellate review. Recent legislation has moved prosecutorial authority over certain serious crimes, including sexual assault, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, domestic violence, and (as of January 1, 2025) sexual harassment, to independent military prosecutors in the Office of Special Trial Counsel who report to the Service Secretary rather than through the chain of command.¹⁷ Commanders still control disposition for many offenses tied to good order and discipline, such as unauthorized absence, insubordination, failure to obey orders, and drug offenses.¹⁸

Sentencing has also tightened. The FY2022 National Defense Authorization Act required military judge-alone sentencing for all non-capital offenses and created a Military Sentencing Parameters and Criteria Board to set ranges for categories of offenses. Judges are generally required to sentence within the applicable parameter, though they may depart from it by explaining in writing the specific facts that justify the deviation.¹⁹ The governing standard is that punishment be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to serve rehabilitation, punishment, protection of society, preservation of good order, and deterrence.²⁰

Challenging a Punishment

A service member has two main channels for pushing back, and which one applies depends on how the punishment was imposed.

For a court-martial conviction, the convening authority performs the first review and may approve, mitigate, or change the sentence, but cannot increase it. If the sentence includes a punitive discharge or confinement exceeding one year, the case must go to the relevant service branch’s Court of Criminal Appeals, composed of military judges who examine both the evidence and the legal correctness of the proceedings. These courts can reduce a sentence but cannot make it more severe.¹ The next level is the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, a civilian court of five judges appointed by the President for 15-year terms; it reviews questions of law only. Either side may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review, but such review is discretionary and rare. Under the FY2022 NDAA, service appellate courts now have jurisdiction over timely appeals from any guilty finding regardless of sentence, and can review sentences for legal violations, unreasonableness, or incorrect application of the sentencing parameters.¹⁷

Separate from these appellate channels, Article 138 of the UCMJ gives a service member a way to challenge a commanding officer directly. It covers discretionary acts or omissions by a commander that violate law or regulation, exceed legitimate authority, are arbitrary or capricious, or are clearly unfair. The service member must first submit a written request for redress to the commander. If the commander does not respond within 15 days or refuses the request, the member may file a formal complaint with a superior commissioned officer. The complaint is forwarded to the general court-martial convening authority for investigation and decision, with final review by The Judge Advocate General. Article 138 does not apply to courts-martial, Article 15 proceedings, or most board actions, and retaliation against a member for filing a complaint is prohibited.²¹

1
Department of Defense Victims and Witness Assistance Council. Military Justice
2
Truman Library. Statement by the President Upon Signing the Uniform Code of Military Justice
3
United States Marine Corps. Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 Edition)
4
TJAGLCS. Criminal Law Deskbook – Overview of Military Justice
5
Army University Press. Corrective Training
6
Army University Press. Nonjudicial Punishment
7
Florida National Guard. Article 15 Hearings
8
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 U.S.C. § 815 – Art. 15. Commanding Officers Non-Judicial Punishment
9
Barksdale Air Force Base. ADC Article 15
10
Joint Service Committee on Military Justice. Nonjudicial Punishment Procedure
11
8th Army Trial Defense Service. Courts-Martial Information Paper
12
Department of Defense. Summary Court-Martial Interim Policy Changes
13
Law for Veterans. Military Discharge
14
Death Penalty Information Center. The Militarys Death Penalty System
15
Army University Press. From Soldier to Condemned Prisoner
16
Federal Judges Association. The Differences Between Military Courts-Martial and Civilian Courts
17
TJAGLCS. This Is Not Your Grandparents Military Justice System
18
U.S. Senate. Gillibrand Praises Historic Military Justice Reforms Passed in Defense Bill
19
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 U.S.C. § 856 – Art. 56. Sentencing
20
Military Sentencing Parameters Article. Military Sentencing Parameters
21
Fort Leonard Wood. The Article 138 Process