10 U.S.C. § 887
Art. 87. Missing movement; jumping from vessel
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
887 | 50:681. | May 5, 1950, ch. 169, § 1 (Art. 87), 64 Stat. 135. |
2016—Pub. L. 114–328 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “Any person subject to this chapter who through neglect or design misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which he is required in the course of duty to move shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Amendment by Pub. L. 114–328 effective on
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 77
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1960–2022 · leading case: United States v. Treat, 73 M.J. 331 (C.A.A.F. 2014).
United States v. Treat, 73 M.J. 331 (C.A.A.F. 2014). “Yet while the government has flexibility in how it charges an Article 87, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 887 , offense, it must live with the result; it cannot charge the missing of a flight and then convict an accused for the missing of a unit movement (as 2 United States v.”
United States v. Palmiter, 20 M.J. 90 (1985). “Opinion COX, Judge: On his provident pleas of guilty, appellant was convicted of missing the movement of his ship through neglect and an unauthorized absence of slightly over 9 months’ duration, in violation of Articles 87 and 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§…”
United States v. Easton, 71 M.J. 168 (C.A.A.F. 2012). “A military judge sitting as a general court-martial at Fort Stewart, Georgia, convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of missing movement by design, in violation of Article 87, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 887 (2006). Appellant…”
United States v. Graham, 16 M.J. 460 (1983). “It is apparent from the quoted legislative history that Article 87, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 887 , was enacted to circumvent an apparently common experience of illegitimate absence at the moment a unit or ship was about to move.”
United States v. Parker, 62 M.J. 459 (C.A.A.F. 2006). “05-0072/MC Parker’s actual knowledge concerning the movement to satisfy the requirements of a missing movement charge under Article 87, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 887 (2000). The court then granted the defense’s request for a continuance.”
United States v. Morrison, 41 M.J. 482 (C.A.A.F. 1995). “A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of missing movement through design, in violation of Article 87, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 887 . The military judge also convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of…”
United States v. Youngblood, 47 M.J. 338 (C.A.A.F. 1997). “10 USC § 887 (a)(1). But Article 87(b) prohibits commanders from considering a court member’s performance in evaluating their efficiency.”
United States v. Wilson, 73 M.J. 529 (A.F.C.C.A. 2014). “The legislative history of Article 12, UCMJ, reveals that, like many provisions of the code, it was based upon an existing Article of War, specifically Article of War 16 (A.”
United States v. Rankins, 34 M.J. 326 (1992). “Opinion CRAWFORD, Judge: Appellant was convicted, contrary to her pleas, of missing movement through design, in violation of Article 87, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 887 . She was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge and confinement for 30 days.”
United States v. Johnson, 45 M.J. 88 (C.A.A.F. 1996). “87 and 90, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 887 and 890, respectively. They sentenced him to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for 3 years, total forfeitures, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.”
United States v. Traxler, 39 M.J. 476 (1994). “Opinion of the Court WISS, Judge: Despite his not-guilty pleas, a general court-martial with members convicted Technical Sergeant Traxler of missing movement of an aircraft through design and willfully disobeying the command of his superior officer to board that same aircraft,…”
United States v. Kirk, 31 M.J. 84 (1990). “Pursuant to her pleas, she was found guilty of missing movement through design and violating a lawful general regulation “by developing a personal relationship with” her instructor, in contravention of Articles 87 and 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 887 and 892,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.