NJP, CAPTAIN'S MAST, ARTICLE 15

Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP): Captain’s Mast, Article 15, and Why It Is Rarely the End

Nonjudicial punishment is one of the most misunderstood parts of military justice. Across the services it goes by different names, but the stakes are similar.

In the Army and Air Force, it is commonly called an Article 15.

In the Navy and Coast Guard, it is Captain’s Mast.

In the Marine Corps, it is NJP.

Many service members believe that accepting NJP will make the issue go away. In reality, NJP is often the first formal step in a longer chain of consequences.

What NJP Is Supposed to Be

NJP is intended to be a prompt disciplinary tool for minor misconduct. It is meant to be more serious than informal corrective action, but less serious than a court-martial. It is also supposed to be considered individually based on the allegation, the service member’s record, and the needs of good order and discipline.

That is the theory.

The reality is that by the time NJP is offered, the command has usually decided to take action and is focused on the outcome.

What NJP Actually Is in Practice

NJP is not a trial. There is no judge and no jury. A commander, often an O-3 or above, acts as the decision-maker and punishment authority.

The same command that initiated the process, pushed the matter to legal, and framed the allegation is now making the call on guilt and punishment. Expecting that process to feel neutral is unrealistic. In most cases, the question is not whether the command believes you. The question is how much punishment they intend to impose.

The Right Most Service Members Do Not Use: Refusing NJP

In many cases, NJP is optional. That means a service member may have the right to demand trial by court-martial instead of accepting NJP.

There are limited situations where that option is restricted, including certain shipboard scenarios. But in the typical case, the decision to accept NJP is a choice point with major downstream consequences.

This is where service members often go wrong. They assume “taking the NJP” is the safest route. Often it is not.

Why “Taking the NJP” Can Backfire

Once a command makes a finding at NJP, that finding can be used as a foundation for additional action. It can become the administrative proof the command relies on to justify escalation.

Common follow-on consequences include:

• Administrative separation proceedings

• Security clearance suspension or revocation

• Reporting to DCSA and clearance adjudication issues

• Adverse evaluations or career-impacting paperwork

Permanent filing consequences in the service member’s official record system

If NJP truly ended after restriction or extra duty, it would be easier to accept. The problem is that it often becomes the documentation the command uses to support removing you from service.

Calling the Command’s Bluff

A service member who refuses NJP may force the command to make a real decision.

Do they actually have the evidence and the will to take the case further, or were they relying on the service member to accept NJP and give the command a quick “guilty” finding they can use later.

If the matter proceeds to an administrative separation board, the service member may have more procedural protections, more opportunity to fight the government’s narrative, and more leverage in the overall process. It also avoids the command locking in a finding at NJP and running with it as established misconduct.

This decision is not risk-free, but it is often misunderstood and underutilized.

NJP Rights That Matter in the Real World

Many service members walk into NJP thinking it is already decided, so they do not prepare. That is a mistake.

Even at NJP, service members often have the ability to:

• Learn exactly what misconduct is alleged

• Review the information and evidence the commander intends to rely on

• Present matters in defense, extenuation, and mitigation

• Request witnesses who are reasonably available

• Use a spokesperson in many cases

• Request suspension of some or all of the punishment in the right case

• Appeal the result through proper channels

These rights are only useful if exercised correctly and strategically. That is why early counsel matters.

Procedural Errors Do Not Automatically Save You

Service members sometimes assume that if the command makes a procedural mistake, the NJP automatically disappears. That is not how it works. Errors often do not invalidate NJP unless the mistake materially harmed an important right.

That reality is another reason to get advice early. The best time to protect yourself is before a damaging record is created.

Why an Attorney Before NJP Can Change the Outcome

NJP is often framed as informal. The downstream consequences are not informal.

An attorney can help you evaluate whether to accept NJP, whether refusal makes sense, how likely escalation is, and how to craft matters to the command that protect you both immediately and later.

This kind of advice and counsel is often cheaper than service members expect, and it establishes the relationship in case the command escalates to separation or trial. It is far easier to contain a case early than to fix it once momentum has built.

Get Advice Before You Stand in Front of the Command

If you have been offered NJP, Captain’s Mast, or an Article 15, you are already at an important decision point. What you do next can shape the rest of your career, your benefits, and your future opportunities.

We offer free consultations for service members dealing with NJP. Even if you ultimately proceed with military defense counsel, getting informed early helps you make the right decision before the command locks in a finding and moves forward.

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Legal rights and obligations depend on the specific facts of each case. You should consult a licensed attorney regarding your individual situation.