This article is part of a comprehensive series covering the punitive articles of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Service members facing any UCMJ charge should consult a qualified military defense attorney.
The military’s version of a DUI statute covers more ground than its civilian counterparts. Article 113 (10 U.S.C. § 913) doesn’t just cover drunk driving. It covers drunk or reckless operation of any vehicle, aircraft, or vessel, whether military or privately owned, whether on or off installation. And unlike most state DUI laws, Article 113 applies worldwide, from a base in Kansas to an outpost in Djibouti to a liberty port in the Mediterranean.
Before the MJA 2016, these offenses were prosecuted under old Article 111. The renumbering placed them at Article 113, but more importantly, the MJA updated the BAC threshold, clarified the “actual physical control” concept, and consolidated the scattered regulatory provisions into a single, cleaner statutory framework.
Impairment-Based and Per Se BAC
The MCM 2024 (Part IV, Paragraph 65a) establishes two independent bases for prosecution, and the prosecution needs only one.
The first: operating or physically controlling any vehicle, aircraft, or vessel in a reckless or wanton manner, or while impaired by a substance described in Article 112a. “Reckless” means culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others. “Wanton” is essentially a synonym in this context, reckless indifference to probable harm. Impairment by a controlled substance (as defined in Article 112a) is treated equivalently to recklessness, the impairment itself establishes the culpable disregard. Under this pathway, no BAC measurement is required. The prosecution can prove the case entirely through behavioral evidence: swerving, inability to maintain lane, slurred speech during the stop, failed field sobriety indicators, or testimony from witnesses who observed the driving pattern.
The second: operating or being in actual physical control of any vehicle, aircraft, or vessel while drunk or when blood alcohol concentration equals or exceeds the applicable limit. “Drunk” means intoxication sufficient to impair the rational and full exercise of mental or physical faculties. The BAC threshold is 0.08 grams per 100 milliliters of blood (or 0.08 grams per 210 liters of breath), though the Secretary of the relevant service branch may prescribe lower limits by regulation.
“Actual physical control” extends beyond driving or operating. A service member found passed out drunk in the driver’s seat of a parked car with keys in the ignition is in “actual physical control” under Article 113, even though they weren’t moving. This mirrors the approach most state DUI statutes take, and it closes the loophole that would otherwise allow a drunk driver who pulls over to sleep to argue they weren’t “operating” the vehicle.
BAC Standards and the State-Federal Interaction
Article 113 applies the lesser of the state BAC limit (for conduct in the United States) or the 0.08 federal threshold. In practice, most states use 0.08, making the standards equivalent. But Utah’s 0.05 threshold means a service member driving in Utah faces the stricter state limit even under UCMJ prosecution. For conduct outside the United States, the 0.08 federal standard applies unless the Secretary has prescribed a lower limit.
The MJA 2016 lowered the federal threshold from 0.10 to 0.08, aligning military law with the standard every U.S. state had already adopted. The Secretary’s authority to prescribe even lower limits creates the possibility of future tightening without congressional action.
Chemical testing and its admissibility follow the Military Rules of Evidence. Implied consent provisions exist on military installations: entering a military installation in a vehicle constitutes implied consent to chemical testing if there’s reasonable suspicion of impaired driving. Off-installation, the testing rules follow the jurisdiction where the stop occurred, creating a patchwork that defense counsel can navigate.
Scope: Vehicles, Aircraft, and Vessels
Article 113’s coverage extends far beyond automobiles. “Vehicle” includes any conveyance propelled or drawn by mechanical or electrical power: motorcycles, trucks, forklifts, golf carts, ATVs, even electric scooters on installation roads. “Aircraft” includes any military or civilian aircraft, fixed-wing or rotary. “Vessel” includes any watercraft, from patrol boats to personal watercraft.
The aircraft and vessel categories reflect uniquely military concerns. A drunk driver endangers others on the road. A drunk pilot endangers everyone aboard and potentially everyone in the crash zone. A drunk vessel operator endangers the crew and, for military vessels, potentially a multi-billion-dollar asset and the mission it supports. Article 110 (Improper Hazarding of Vessel or Aircraft) may also apply in these scenarios, creating potential for dual charging when the impaired operation specifically endangered a military vessel or aircraft.
The practical overlap with Article 111 (Leaving Scene of Vehicle Accident) is common. A service member who drives drunk, causes an accident, and flees faces Article 113 for the impaired driving and Article 111 for the departure. With Article 128 (Assault) added when the driving causes injury, a single drunk-driving incident can generate three or more independent charges.
Punishment and Career Consequences
Maximum punishment: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and eighteen months’ confinement. Aggravating factors, causing injury, causing death, prior offenses, can affect sentencing within this maximum. Additional charges under other articles (Article 119 for involuntary manslaughter, Article 128 for assault) compound the total exposure significantly when the impaired operation causes harm.
Beyond court-martial, Article 113 convictions trigger administrative consequences that often exceed the criminal punishment in long-term impact. Loss of driving privileges on military installations is automatic. Security clearance review is triggered. Favorable personnel actions (promotion, reenlistment, favorable assignments) are held pending adjudication. For officers, an Article 113 conviction can trigger a board of inquiry. For enlisted members, it can trigger administrative separation processing independent of any court-martial outcome.
Geography doesn’t matter. Vehicle type doesn’t matter. Whether a breathalyzer was available doesn’t matter. Article 113 follows service members worldwide, covers every conveyance type, and allows conviction through behavioral evidence alone. The scope reflects the military’s position: impaired operation is a readiness issue, not a traffic issue, and readiness standards don’t stop at the installation gate or the national border.
Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law: Article 113 is the military’s DUI statute, covering drunk or reckless operation of any vehicle, aircraft, or vessel, whether military or private, on or off installation, anywhere in the world. It provides two independent paths to conviction: impairment-based and per se BAC-based.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this content. If you are facing charges under the UCMJ or need legal guidance regarding military justice matters, consult a qualified military defense attorney.