The NJP appeal process provides a mechanism for challenging both the findings of an Article 15 proceeding and the punishment imposed. An appeal goes to the next superior authority in the chain of command, who has the power to reduce or set aside the punishment entirely. In cases where the appeal is successful, the question of what happens to the record of the NJP is not automatically answered, and the outcome of a successful appeal does not always produce a clean slate.
Understanding what a successful appeal actually accomplishes requires knowing what records were generated, where they are maintained, and what the applicable regulations require in terms of their retention or removal. An appeal that reduces a punishment may still leave documentation in place. An appeal that sets aside a finding entirely has different consequences. The practical value of pursuing an appeal depends on those distinctions and on what the service member’s specific goals are in challenging the NJP.
The Two Grounds for NJP Appeal and What Each Covers
An appeal from an Article 15 proceeding may be based on two distinct grounds. The first is that the punishment imposed was unjust. The second is that the punishment was disproportionate to the offense. These grounds are not mutually exclusive, and an appeal can raise both simultaneously, but they call for different arguments and different evidence.
An appeal on the ground that the punishment was unjust typically involves challenging the underlying findings, arguing that the evidence did not support the conclusion that the soldier committed the alleged offense, or that procedural requirements were not followed in a way that compromised the fairness of the proceeding. An appeal on the ground of disproportionality accepts the underlying findings and argues instead that the punishment imposed was too severe relative to the nature of the conduct and the soldier’s overall record. Both types of appeals are reviewed by the next superior authority in the chain of command, who has broad discretion to act on the appeal in any way that does not increase the punishment.
What the Superior Commander Can Do on Appeal
The next superior authority who receives an NJP appeal has broad remedial authority. They may reduce any part of the punishment that was imposed, suspend any part of the punishment, set aside the punishment entirely, or set aside the underlying finding and dismiss the charges. The reviewing authority cannot increase the punishment beyond what was originally imposed. The scope of the review encompasses both the fairness of the proceedings and the appropriateness of the punishment.
In practice, reviewing authorities vary significantly in how thoroughly they engage with NJP appeals. Some provide detailed explanations of their decisions. Others issue summary responses that accept or deny the appeal without elaborating on the reasoning. A well-prepared appeal that presents a clear factual record and a specific legal or factual argument is more likely to receive serious consideration than a general complaint about the outcome. Counsel who have experience with how reviewing authorities at specific installations typically respond can advise on what arguments and formats are most likely to be effective.
Whether a Successful Appeal Removes the NJP From the Record
A successful appeal that sets aside the underlying finding and dismisses the charge results in the removal of the Article 15 from the performance fiche of the service member’s Official Military Personnel File. This is the most complete form of relief available through the appeal process. The NJP no longer appears in the portion of the service record that is routinely reviewed by promotion boards, and the service member’s record reflects the dismissal rather than the original finding.
A successful appeal that reduces the punishment without setting aside the finding does not remove the Article 15 from the record. The document remains, reflecting the original finding and the reduced punishment. This is still a valuable outcome if the reduction affects the specific consequences the service member was facing, such as a demotion that has been reversed or a forfeiture that has been reduced, but it does not produce the clean record result that a full set-aside provides.
How Partially Successful Appeals Are Documented
When an appeal results in partial relief, the outcome must be documented in a way that accurately reflects what was changed and what was not. If the punishment was reduced, the reduction is annotated on the Article 15 record. If certain elements of the punishment were set aside but others were upheld, each element’s status must be clear. The soldier who achieves partial relief should verify that the documentation accurately reflects the appeal outcome and should correct any errors through the appropriate administrative channel if the documentation is incorrect.
Partially successful appeals may also require updated entries in the evaluation report or other records that referenced the original punishment. A letter of reprimand that referenced a punishment that has since been reduced should be corrected to reflect the current state of the record. Defense counsel who pursue partial relief on appeal must follow through to ensure that the downstream records are updated consistently with the appeal outcome.
Appealing an NJP vs. Petitioning for Correction of Military Records
The Article 15 appeal process and the military records correction process address different situations and require different approaches. The appeal must be filed within a specific time period following the NJP, typically within five days, and must go to the next superior authority in the chain of command. The records correction petition is filed with the Army Board for Correction of Military Records or the equivalent board in other services and may be filed at any time within three years of discovering the error or injustice that warrants correction.
A soldier who missed the appeal deadline or who is not satisfied with the result of an appeal may pursue correction through the BCMR process. That process applies a different standard, asking whether the record reflects an error or an injustice, and it has the authority to remove an NJP from the record entirely even years after the fact if the board concludes that doing so is warranted. Defense counsel with experience in BCMR petitions understand how to document the injustice argument that gives a petition the best chance of success.
This content is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Military law is complex and fact-specific. If you are facing a UCMJ investigation, court-martial, administrative separation, or any other military legal matter, consult a qualified military defense attorney before taking any action.