UCMJ Article 110: Improper Hazarding of Vessel or Aircraft

The MCM states under article 110, a service member may be subject to prosecution if they:

1. willfully and wrongfully, hazards or suffers to be hazarded any vessel or aircraft of the armed forces; or

2. negligently hazards or suffers to be hazarded any vessel or aircraft of the armed forces.

To be convicted of an Article 110 violation, the prosecution must demonstrate:

1. a vessel or aircraft of the armed forces was hazarded in a particular manner; and

2. the accused, by specific acts or omissions, willfully and wrongfully, or negligently, caused or caused the vessel or aircraft to be hazarded.

Understanding Article 110 (Improper Hazard of Vessel or Aircraft) of the UCMJ

For Article 110, the term hazard means to put in danger of loss or injury. While collision, stranding, or running upon a shoal or a rock that results in damage to, or the loss of, a military vessel or aircraft (including remotely piloted aircraft and uncrewed aerial vehicles) demonstrates the vessel or aircraft was hazarded, it does not reflect the guilt of any particular person.

The hazard must have been committed willfully and wrongfully, intentionally and contrary to law, regulation, lawful order, or custom. Negligence is the failure to exercise the care, prudence, or attention to duties which the interests of the Government require a prudent and reasonable person to exercise under the circumstances. Negligence could result from an omission or the deliberate disregard of proper procedure and duty. No service member is relieved of guilt when they fail to perform duties that are imposed by the general responsibilities of that person’s grade or rank, or by the customs of the Service for the safety and protection of vessels and aircraft of the armed forces, simply because these duties are not specifically enumerated in a regulation or order. However, a mere error in judgment that a reasonably able person might have committed under the same circumstances does not constitute an offense under this article.

Also, for Article 110, the term suffer means to allow or permit an action to take place. Suffering through neglect implies an omission to take such measures as were appropriate under the circumstances to prevent a foreseeable danger. 

Maximum Possible Punishment for Violations of Article 110

Service members convicted of a violation of Article 110 face the maximum possible punishment of death or any other punishment a court-martial may deem appropriate if the charges were for willful and wrongful hazarding. If the person is convicted of negligent hazarding,, the maximum possible punishment includes a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for tw years. 

How do you defend against Article 110 Improper Hazarding of Vessel or Aircraft charges?

When you are facing the combined resources of the military as well as the current cultural climate, you need to be prepared to defend your career and your freedom. Crisp and Associates, LLC has a team of experienced trial attorneys who have won these cases. This team includes the firm’s founder, Jonathan Crisp, a highly respected former Army JAG with over 23 years of experience in military law and a sought-after speaker and lecturer on martial law. Donald Gordon has litigated cases before the Discharge Review Board, the Board for Correction of Military Records, and the Board for Correction of Naval Records regarding various matters and a diverse background of clients.

If you or someone you know is facing Article 110 charges for Improper Hazarding of Vessel or Aircraft, you need to speak with a Military defense attorney immediately. Please call Crisp and Associates Military at 888-347-1514 for a free consultation.