Non-judicial punishment
Non-judicial punishment is any form of punishment that may be applied to individual military personnel, without a need for a court martial or similar proceedings.
United States
In the United States Armed Forces, non-judicial punishment is a form of military justice authorized by Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. NJP permits commanders to administratively discipline troops without a court-martial. Punishment can range from reprimand to reduction in rank, correctional custody, loss of pay, extra duty, and/or restrictions. The receipt of non-judicial punishment does not constitute a criminal conviction, but is often placed in the service record of the individual. The process for non-judicial punishment is governed by Part V of the Manual for Courts-Martial and by each service branch's regulations.Non-judicial punishment proceedings are known by different terms among the services. In the Army and the Air Force, non-judicial punishment is referred to as Article 15; in the Marine Corps it is called being "NJP'd," being sent to "Office Hours," or satirically amongst the junior ranks, "Ninja Punched." The Navy and the Coast Guard call non-judicial punishment captain's mast or admiral's mast, depending on the rank of the commanding officer.
Hearing
Prior to imposition of NJP, the commander will notify the accused of the commander's intention to impose punishment, the nature of the misconduct alleged, supporting evidence, and a statement of the accused's rights under the UCMJ. All service members, except those embarked or attached to a vessel currently away from its homeport, have a right to refuse NJP and request a court-martial. If the accused does not accept the NJP, the NJP hearing is terminated and the commander must make the decision of whether to process the service member for court-martial. If the accused accepts NJP, he or she, plus a representative if desired, will attend the hearing conducted by the commander. The accused may present evidence and witnesses to the commander. The commander must consider any information offered during the hearing, and must be personally convinced that the service member committed misconduct before imposing punishment.Punishments
Maximum penalties depend on the rank of the accused and that of the officer imposing punishment:For officers accused of misconduct
If the officer imposing punishment holds General Court Martial authority, or if the commanding officer is of the grade O-7 or greater- Arrest in quarters: not more than 30 days
- Restriction to limits: not more than 60 days
- Forfeiture of pay: not more than ½ of one month's base pay for two months
- Admonition or reprimand
- Restriction to limits: not more than 30 days
- Admonition or reprimand
- Restriction to limits: not more than 15 days
- Admonition or reprimand
- No NJP authority over officers
For enlisted members accused of misconduct
Summary Article 15: commanders and commissioned OIC may impose:
- Restriction to specific limits for not more than 14 days
- Extra duties, including fatigue or other duties, for not more than 14 days
- Restriction with extra duties for not more than 14 days
- Correctional Custody for not more than 7 days
- Forfeiture of 7 days base pay
- Reduction by one grade, if original rank in promotion authority of imposing officer
- Confinement on diminished rations or bread and water for not more than 3 days., United States
- Admonition or reprimand, either written or verbal
- Restriction for not more than 60 days
- Extra duties for not more than 45 days
- Restriction with extra duties for not more than 45 days
- Correctional Custody for not more than 30 days
- Forfeiture of ½ of base pay for two months
- Reduction by one grade if ; or reduction to E-1
- Confinement on diminished rations or bread and water for not more than 3 days , United States
- Admonition or reprimand, either written or verbal
If the member considers the punishment to be unjust or to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed, he or she may appeal the NJP to a higher authority. This is usually the next officer in the chain of command. Upon considering the appeal, the higher authority may set aside the NJP, decrease the severity of the punishment, or may deny the appeal. They may not increase the severity of the punishment.
Personnel are permitted to refuse NJP in favor of a court-martial; this might be done in cases where they do not feel their Commanding Officer will give them a fair hearing. But this option exposes them to a possible criminal court conviction. Navy and Marine Corps personnel assigned to or embarked aboard ship do not have the option of refusing NJP, nor can they appeal the decision of the officer imposing punishment; they may only appeal the severity of the punishment.
Mast
In naval tradition, mast is the traditional location of the non-judicial hearing under which a commanding officer studies and disposes of cases involving those in his command.If the individual conducting the proceeding is either a captain, or a lower ranking officer serving as commanding officer of a naval or coast guard vessel, an aviation squadron, or similar command afloat or ashore, then the proceeding is referred to as a captain's mast.
If an admiral is overseeing the mast, then the procedure is referred to as an admiral's mast or a flag mast.
A captain's mast or admiral's mast is a procedure whereby the commanding officer must:
- Make inquiry into the facts surrounding minor offenses allegedly committed by a member of the command;
- Afford the accused a hearing as to such offenses; and
- Dispose of such charges by dismissing the charges, imposing punishment under the provisions of military law or referring the case to a court-martial.
- A trial, as the term "non-judicial" implies;
- A conviction, even if punishment is imposed;
- An acquittal, even if punishment is not imposed.
The term mast may also refer to when a captain or commanding officer makes him/herself available to hear concerns, complaints, or requests from the crew. Traditionally, on a naval vessel, the captain would stand at the main mast of that vessel when holding mast. The crew, who by custom did not speak with the captain, could speak to him directly at these times. It could also refer to the naval punishment of tying one to a mast and lashing them with a whip.
In modern times, a meritorious mast refers to the commanding officer taking this time to single out a member of the crew for praise and present written recognition of work well done.