By LTC Steven Huckleberry
Commanders are entrusted with many authorities, but few are as consequential, and as little prepared for, as the execution of non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Unlike training management, operational planning, or ethical decision-making, NJP is rarely approached as a skill that requires deliberate education. Yet its effects are immediate and personal: careers are altered, families are impacted, reputations are shaped, and a unit’s perception of fairness and legitimacy is either reinforced or quietly eroded.
Early in my career, as a battery commander, I adjudicated an Article 15 with little formal preparation beyond a statutory briefing in a company pre-command course and a procedural checklist. I had never seen one, so like many commanders, I relied heavily on my First Sergeant in the moments before the proceedings to ensure I understood what was about to occur. From my anecdotal inquiries, that experience was not unique. Even in formal pre-command courses, instruction on the law of armed conflict often eclipses meaningful discussion of NJP, despite the fact that non-judicial punishment is far more likely to confront commanders early and often.
Over time, I became increasingly uncomfortable with how ad hoc and personality-driven the NJP process can be. Commanders are expected to balance unit discipline with individual justice; emotion with logic; deterrence with rehabilitation. They are asked to make decisions that carry second- and third-order effects, often under time pressure and with incomplete information, while projecting confidence and moral clarity to Soldiers who may be experiencing the most consequential moment of their careers. Yet, we rarely provide leaders a deliberate framework for doing so.
The consequences of this gap are subtle but real. When NJP feels improvised, opaque, or unevenly applied, Soldiers may comply with punishment while losing faith in the institution administering it. Leaders may leave the process uncertain whether they achieved justice or merely expedience. Over time, this erodes trust through accumulated doubt about whether discipline is exercised thoughtfully, consistently, and with genuine concern for both the individual and the unit.
This article proposes a framework for executing NJP deliberately. It does not claim to be definitive or universally applicable. Rather, it reflects a system I developed to better understand the Soldiers who stand before me, the leadership systems that shaped their behavior, and the implications of any decision I make. The intent is threefold. First, to provide incoming company-level commanders a practical framework for exercising NJP with rigor and legitimacy. Second, to offer battalion-level commanders a method for compensating for the distance that naturally grows as formations expand. Finally, to propose leader development practices that prepare future leaders—well before command—to assume this responsibility with maturity and confidence.
At its core, this approach treats non-judicial punishment not as an administrative burden, but as a form of stewardship: stewardship of authority, stewardship of people, and stewardship of trust within the profession of arms.
The Institutional Gap: Why We Teach NJP Poorly
The Army does not ignore non-judicial punishment. Commanders are briefed on its legal foundations, its procedural requirements, and the rights afforded to Soldiers. Judge advocates rightly emphasize due process and compliance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Yet what is largely absent from professional military education is guidance on how commanders should think about NJP as a leadership act rather than a legal event.
