10 U.S.C. § 914

Art. 114. Endangerment offenses

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Reckless Endangerment.—Any person subject to this chapter who engages in conduct that—(1) is wrongful and reckless or is wanton; and(2) is likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm to another person;shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.(b)Dueling.—Any person subject to this chapter—(1) who fights or promotes, or is concerned in or connives at fighting, a duel; or(2) who, having knowledge of a challenge sent or about to be sent, fails to report the facts promptly to the proper authority;shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.(c)Firearm Discharge, Endangering Human Life.—Any person subject to this chapter who, willfully and wrongly, discharges a firearm, under circumstances such as to endanger human life shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.(d)Carrying Concealed Weapon.—Any person subject to this chapter who unlawfully carries a dangerous weapon concealed on or about his person shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 72; Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LX, § 5426, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2948.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
914	50:708.	May 5, 1950, ch. 169, § 1 (Art. 114), 64 Stat. 139.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2016—Pub. L. 114–328 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “Any person subject to this chapter who fights or promotes, or is concerned in or connives at fighting a duel, or who, having knowledge of a challenge sent or about to be sent, fails to report the facts promptly to the proper authority, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2016 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–328 effective on Jan. 1, 2019, as designated by the President, with implementing regulations and provisions relating to applicability to various situations, see section 5542 of Pub. L. 114–328 and Ex. Ord. No. 13825, set out as notes under section 801 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: United States v. Bygrave, 46 M.J. 491 (C.A.A.F. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Bygrave, 46 M.J. 491 (C.A.A.F. 1997). “114 (dueling), 120 (carnal knowledge), and 134 (bigamy), UCMJ, 10 USC §§ 914 , 920, and 934, respectively.”

United States v. MAEBANE (N.M.C.C.A. 2024). · cites it 2× “s against Appellant did not exist; (4) the military judge erroneously denied trial defense counsel’s continuance request that was neces- sary to ensure a defense expert consultant was present at trial; (5) the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support a…”

United States v. Maebane (C.A.A.F. 2025). · cites it 2× “A panel of officers and enlisted members at a general court-martial convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of reckless endangerment and one specification of involuntary manslaughter, in violation of Articles 114 and 119, Uniform Code of Military Justice…”

United States v. Addis (N.M.C.C.A. 2019). “201900224 Modified Entry of Judgment Charge IV: Violation of Article 114, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 914 . Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Withdrawn and dismissed.”

United States v. Stefanek (A.F.C.C.A. 2021). “§ 886 , 1 and one specification of unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon into his place of work in violation of Article 114, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 914 . Appellant was also convicted, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of kidnapping in violation of Article 125, UCMJ, 10 U.”

United States v. Halter (A.F.C.C.A. 2022). “) (2016 MCM); and one specification of reckless endangerment, two specifications of assault upon an intimate partner, and an additional specification of assault consummated by a battery, in violation of Articles 114, 128b, and 128, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 914 , 928b, 928, Manual for…”

United States v. Dickson (A.F.C.C.A. 2022). “As a result, the members acquitted Appellant of one charge with one specification of wrong- ful and willful discharge of a firearm, to wit: while driving on a motorway under cir- cumstances such as to endanger human life, in violation of Article 114, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 914 .…”

United States v. Halter (A.F.C.C.A. 2022). “) (2016 MCM); one specification of reckless en- dangerment, two specifications of assault upon an intimate partner, and an additional specification of assault consummated by a battery, in violation of Articles 114, 128b, and 128, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 914 , 928b, 928, Manual for…”

United States v. Reimers (A.F.C.C.A. 2023). “§ 912a;2 one charge and one specification of unlawfully carrying a con- cealed weapon in violation of Article 114, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 914 ; one charge and two specifications of federal firearms offenses in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, 10 U.”

Bell v. Dep't of the Navy Off. of the Judge Advocate Gen. (E.D. Mo. 2021). “He claims 10 U.S.C. § 914 , the Endangerment Offenses section of the Uniform Code of Military Justice “[s]ays you can’t do what you have done to nearly 900,000 Marines and their families and after 40 years in court just sweep them all under the carpet by saying, ‘YOU CAN GET…”

United States v. AVILA (N.M.C.C.A. 2025). “Charge III: Violation of Article 114, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 914 . Plea: Guilty. Finding: Guilty.”

United States v. Caswell (A.F.C.C.A. 2025). “________________________ PERCLE, Judge: A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted Appellant, con- trary to his pleas, of one specification of unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon, in violation of Article 114, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 914 , and one specifica- tion…”

Show all 16 citing cases →

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.