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.
A Navy destroyer runs aground in a channel because the officer of the deck ignored navigation warnings. An Air Force pilot performs unauthorized aerobatic maneuvers in a training aircraft, nearly colliding with a civilian airliner. A Coast Guard coxswain operates a patrol boat at excessive speed through a congested harbor, striking a fishing vessel. Each of these scenarios involves endangering assets worth tens of millions to billions of dollars, and more importantly, the lives of everyone aboard and in the vicinity. Article 110 (10 U.S.C. § 910) exists specifically for this category of misconduct.
The article addresses a narrow but catastrophic risk category: the destruction or endangerment of vessels and aircraft, the military’s most expensive and operationally critical platforms. While Article 108 covers damage to military property generally, Article 110 recognizes that hazarding a ship or aircraft is qualitatively different from damaging a vehicle or piece of equipment. The potential for mass casualties, the operational impact of losing a major platform, and the public trust implications of military vessels and aircraft colliding or running aground justify a dedicated statute.
Willful Hazarding vs. Negligent Hazarding
The MCM 2024 (Part IV, Paragraph 62a) separates Article 110 into two offenses based on the accused’s mental state.
Willful hazarding
Any person subject to the UCMJ who willfully and wrongfully hazards or suffers to be hazarded any vessel or aircraft of the armed forces. “Willfully” means the accused acted intentionally, knowing that their conduct would endanger the vessel or aircraft. “Suffers to be hazarded” covers the commander or officer who knowingly allows another person to endanger the vessel or aircraft without intervening. This form carries the most severe punishment in the UCMJ’s arsenal for property-related offenses: death, or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
The death penalty authorization for willful hazarding is striking, and it reflects the historical weight the military places on the stewardship of ships and aircraft. In naval tradition, the captain’s responsibility for the vessel is absolute. Willfully endangering a ship, with its crew and its mission capability, is treated as an offense on par with the most serious wartime violations.
Negligent hazarding
Any person who negligently hazards or suffers to be hazarded any vessel or aircraft of the armed forces. “Negligently” means the accused failed to exercise the degree of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in the same circumstances. This lower mental state threshold captures the officer of the deck who falls asleep on watch, the pilot who fails to follow pre-flight checklist procedures, or the commander who allows an untrained person to operate critical systems without adequate supervision.
The distinction between willful and negligent hazarding often determines whether the case is a career-ending court-martial or a career-affecting administrative action. Negligent hazarding typically results in non-judicial punishment or a special court-martial. Willful hazarding, because of its death penalty eligibility, requires referral to a general court-martial.
“Vessel or Aircraft of the Armed Forces”
Article 110’s scope is limited to vessels and aircraft of the armed forces. A service member who negligently crashes a privately owned automobile on an installation has not violated Article 110, though other articles may apply. The limitation reflects the article’s purpose: protecting specific, high-value, mission-critical platforms whose loss or damage has consequences far beyond the individual operator.
“Vessel” in this context means any ship, boat, or watercraft belonging to or operated by the armed forces. This includes everything from aircraft carriers to rigid-hull inflatable boats. “Aircraft” includes fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft, manned or unmanned. The expansion of unmanned systems (drones, UAS) raises questions about Article 110’s application to unmanned platforms: the statute’s text refers to hazarding “any vessel or aircraft,” and an unmanned aircraft is still an aircraft.
The article does not cover ground vehicles, which fall under the general property damage provisions of Articles 108 and 109. This creates an asymmetry: negligently wrecking a $5 million helicopter is an Article 110 offense, but negligently wrecking a $5 million armored vehicle is not. The asymmetry exists because the specific risks of maritime and aviation operations, and the specific command responsibilities they entail, have historically warranted dedicated statutory treatment.
The USS McCain, USS Fitzgerald, and the Accountability Framework
The 2017 collisions involving the USS John S. McCain and the USS Fitzgerald brought Article 110 into public prominence. Both incidents involved navigation failures that resulted in collisions with commercial vessels, causing the deaths of seventeen sailors between the two ships. The subsequent investigations and legal proceedings demonstrated how Article 110 functions in the most consequential cases: officers were charged with negligent hazarding for failures of watchstanding, navigation, and leadership that allowed the collisions to occur.
These cases also illustrated the interaction between Article 110 and other UCMJ provisions. The officers involved faced potential charges under Article 119 (Involuntary Manslaughter) for the deaths, Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation) for violations of navigation and watchstanding rules, and Article 110 for the hazarding of the vessels themselves. Each article captures a different dimension of the same incident: the deaths, the regulatory violations, and the endangerment of the ship.
The USS Bonhomme Richard fire in 2020 illustrated why this article carries the weight it does. A single ship, valued at over a billion dollars, was lost entirely. The Navy charged a seaman apprentice under Article 110 alongside aggravated arson charges. Whether the hazarding was willful or negligent determined whether the death penalty was legally available. That distinction, between a service member who deliberately endangered a warship and one who failed to exercise adequate care, is the core of Article 110 and the reason it calibrates punishment so sharply based on mental state.
Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law: Article 110 addresses the willful or negligent hazarding of any vessel or aircraft. Willful hazarding, deliberately endangering a ship or aircraft, carries up to ten years’ confinement. Negligent hazarding, endangerment through culpable failure to exercise due care, carries up to two years.
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.