Article 114 | Endangerment Offenses

Accused of an Article 114 Charge for Reckless Endangerment, Dueling, Unlawful Firearm Discharge, or Carrying a Concealed Weapon?  Don’t go it alone.  Military Law Center can help.

The Manual for Courts-Martial, under Article 114 (10 U.S.C. 914), prohibits any service member from engaging in reckless endangerment, dueling, willfully and wrongfully discharging a firearm, and carrying a concealed weapon.  The government has seven methods to prove an endangerment offense against a service member.

Endangerment offenses under Article 114 can be proven by the prosecutor by showing the service member (1) recklessly endangered another person, (2) engaged in a duel, (3) endangered human life with a wrongful firearm discharge, or (4) unlawfully carried a concealed weapon.

The prosecution can charge Article 114 in seven ways:

Reckless Endangerment:

1. That the Accused did engage in conduct;
2. That the conduct was wrongful and reckless or wanton; and 
3. That the conduct was likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm to another person.

Dueling:

1. That the Accused fought another person with deadly weapons; 
2. That the combat was for private reasons; and
3. That the combat was by prior agreement.

Promoting a Duel:

1. That the Accused promoted a duel between certain persons; and
2. That the Accused did so in a certain manner.

Conniving at Fighting a Duel:

1. That certain persons intended to and were about to engage in a duel;
2. That the Accused had knowledge of the planned duel; and
3. That the Accused connived at the fighting of the duel in a certain manner.

Failure to Report a Duel:

1. That a challenge to fight a duel had been sent or was about to be sent;
2. That the Accused had knowledge of this challenge; and 
3. That the Accused failed to report this fact promptly to proper authority.

Firearm Discharge, Endangering Human Life:

1. That the Accused discharged a firearm;
2. That the discharge was willful and wrongful; and
3. That the discharge was under circumstances such as to endanger human life.

Carrying Concealed Weapon:

1. That the Accused carried a certain weapon concealed on or about the Accused’s person;
2. That the carrying was unlawful; and 
3. That the weapon was a dangerous weapon.

The terms found within the elements above have specific definitions.  The following definitions apply:

Reckless Endangerment Definitions:

• Generally: This offense is intended to prohibit and therefore deter reckless or wanton conduct that wrongfully creates a substantial risk of death or grievous bodily harm to others.
• Wrongfulness: Conduct is wrongful when it is without legal justification or excuse. 
• Recklessness: “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved.  The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm or know that his conduct is substantially certain to cause that result.  The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the Accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.
• Wantonness: “Wanton” includes “reckless” but may include willfulness, or a disregard of probable consequences, and thus describe a more aggravated offense.
• Likely to Produce:  When the natural or probable consequence of particular conduct would be death or grievous bodily harm, it may be inferred that the conduct is likely to produce that result.
• Grievous Bodily Harm:  Grievous bodily harm means a bodily injury that involves: (1) a substantial risk of death; (2) extreme physical pain; (3) protracted and obvious disfigurement; or (4) protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.
• Death or Injury Not Required: It is not necessary that death or grievous bodily harm be actually inflicted to prove reckless endangerment.

Dueling Definitions:

• Duel: A duel is combat between two persons for private reasons fought with deadly weapons by prior agreement.
• Promoting a Duel:  Urging or taunting another to challenge or to accept a challenge to duel, acting as a second or as carrier of a challenge or acceptance, or otherwise furthering or contributing to the fighting of a duel are examples of promoting a duel.
• Conniving at Fighting a Duel:  Anyone who has knowledge that steps are being taken or have been taken toward arranging or fighting a duel and who fails to take reasonable preventive action thereby connives at the fighting of a duel.

Firearm Discharge, Endangering Human Life Definition:

• “Under circumstances such as to endanger human life” refers to a reasonable potentiality for harm to human beings in general.  The test is not whether the life was in fact endangered but whether, considering the circumstances surrounding the wrongful discharge of the weapon, the act was unsafe to human life.

Carrying Concealed Weapon Definitions:

• Concealed Weapon: A weapon is concealed when it is carried by a person and intentionally covered or kept from sight.
• Dangerous Weapon:  For purposes of carrying a concealed weapon, a weapon is dangerous if it was specifically designed for the purpose of doing grievous bodily harm, or it was used or intended to be used by the accused to do grievous bodily harm.
• On or About: “On or About” means the weapon was carried on the Accused’s person or was within the immediate reach of the Accused.

An Article 114 charge can feel career ending and daunting to defend against, but there are defenses available to fight the accusation:

• Reckless Endangerment:
  “Alibi” means that the Accused could not have committed the offense charged because the Accused was at another place when the offense occurred. Alibi is a complete defense to the offense of reckless endangerment.  The burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate the Accused’s guilt. 
• Dueling:
  If the fight with another was not planned and the Accused engaged in self-defense, then this would be a complete defense.  When some evidence in the case concerning the Accused’s ability or lack of ability to leave from his or her assailant, a person may stand his or her ground when he or she is at a place at which he or she has a right to be. 
• Firearm Discharge:
  The Accident defense would defeat the element of “willfulness” for this offense.  If the Accused was doing a lawful act in a lawful manner free of any negligence on his or her part, and unexpected bodily harm occurs, the Accused is not criminally liable. The defense of accident has three parts. 
  • First, the accused’s actions resulting in the bodily harm must have been lawful. 
  • Second, the accused must not have been negligent. In other words, the accused must have been acting with the amount of care for the safety of others that a reasonably prudent person would have used under the same or similar circumstances.  
  • Third, the death bodily harm must have been unforeseeable and unintentional.
• Carrying Concealed Weapon: 
  A defense to show the Accused was not carrying would be to show the weapon was “not within the immediate reach” of the Accused.

The maximum punishment for Article 114 is a dishonorable discharge, 1 year confinement, total forfeitures of pay and allowances, reduction in rank to E-1, and other lawful punishments.

The potential penalties for endangerment offenses vary on the seriousness of the offense. A court-martial can impose a range of punishments, including:

• Confinement: The accused may face imprisonment for a specific period determined by the court-martial.
• Reduction in rank: This could involve a demotion to a lower enlisted grade or officer rank.
• Forfeiture of pay and allowances: The accused may lose a portion of their military pay and benefits.
• Bad-conduct discharge: This is a less severe form of separation with a negative characterization, potentially impacting future employment opportunities.
• Reprimand or admonition: These are non-judicial punishments involving official censure of the accused’s actions.

The specific maximum punishment for an Article 114 offense will depend on how the government presents its case and how many separate specifications the accused is facing.  Our attorneys at the Military Law Center can help provide a maximum punishment for your case during a free consultation.

The military has the option of charging an accused with endangerment offense at a court martial or choosing to use the administrative separation board process.  All military services prohibit engaging in reckless endangerment, dueling, wrongful firearm discharges, and unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon.  An ADSEP Board for Article 114 offenses is a more challenging environment for an accused to win because the burden of proof is far lower than that required at a court martial.  

Despite the easier burden for the government, attorneys at the Military Law Center have successfully defended service members facing allegations of endangerment offenses.  By strategically planning a defense and critically analyzing the evidence, our ADSEP Board lawyers can help get your military career back on track.

When a service member is arrested for endangerment offenses or becomes “titled” in a law enforcement investigation, their security clearance may be in jeopardy.  Service members may receive a Request for Supplemental Information (RSI) from the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DSCA).  DSCA is required to review a service member’s eligibility for an active security clearance when they are charged with or convicted of any criminal offenses (excluding traffic violations that do not involve alcohol or drugs, resulting in fines less than $300) since the last investigation pursuant to DoDM 5200.02. 

As any response to DSCA may be used against a service member later at an ADSEP Board or court martial, it is paramount to consult with a qualified military law attorney with experience with security clearance issues.  Effective responses to a request for supplemental information will use the 2017 National Security Adjudicative Guidelines, Security Executive Agent Directive 4.

An Article 114 arrest and conviction can have devastating consequences beyond the courtroom. It can damage your reputation within the military, stall your career progression, and potentially hinder future job opportunities in the civilian sector.  

Additionally, service members may be precluded from ownership, receipt, or transport of any firearm that has been transported in interstate or foreign commerce under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(6) when the accused separates from the military with a dishonorable discharge.

Facing an Article 114 accusation can be frustrating, stressful, and sometimes an embarrassing experience. At Military Law Center, our attorneys understand the challenges you’re facing, and we’re here to help. Here’s what sets us apart:

• Experienced Military Defense Lawyers:
  Our team is comprised of former military judge advocates (JAGs) with a deep understanding of military law and the UCMJ. We’ve successfully defended countless service members facing all kinds of allegations, and we know how to litigate the complexities of military justice from start to finish.
• Personalized Attention:
  We care for every client as an individual. We’ll take the time to understand your specific situation and develop a personalized defense strategy, to include rehabilitation options, designed to achieve the best possible outcome.
• Aggressively Protecting Your Rights:
  We’re committed to fighting for your rights and ensuring you receive fair treatment throughout the legal process. We’ll explore all available defenses and work tirelessly to protect your career and reputation.
• Clear Communication:
  We understand legal terms can be confusing. We’ll keep you informed about the progress of your case and explain everything in clear, understandable terms.
• Free Consultation:
  We offer a free consultation to discuss your situation and answer any questions you may have. This allows you to make informed decisions about your defense strategy.

Don’t Face Article 114 Allegations Alone. Military Law Center Can Help.

An Article 114 charge can take away your gun rights, stall your military career, and damage your personal and professional reputation. But you don’t have to fight by yourself. Military Law Center has a proven track record of successfully defending service members facing the most serious charges and getting them the rehabilitative help they need. Our experienced military law attorneys understand the military justice system and will work tirelessly to protect your rights and achieve the best possible outcome for your case.

Contact Military Law Center today for a free consultation.
We’ll stand by your side and fight for you.

Call Us Today – (760) 536-9038