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.
Before the MJA 2016, old Article 114 covered dueling, a relic from an era when officers settled disputes with pistols at dawn. The current Article 114 (10 U.S.C. § 914) replaced dueling with a modern suite of endangerment offenses that reflect the actual safety threats present in contemporary military life: reckless conduct, negligent firearm discharge, and concealed weapons.
The transformation wasn’t cosmetic. Old Article 114 had been essentially dead letter for decades. The new version consolidates offenses that were previously scattered across Article 134’s general clauses, giving prosecutors specific elements and giving defense counsel specific targets to attack. The result is a cleaner charging framework for conduct that falls between the cracks of other UCMJ articles, dangerous enough to be criminal but not resulting in the completed harm that assault or manslaughter requires.
Reckless Endangerment, Negligent Discharge, Concealed Weapons
The MCM 2024 (Part IV, Paragraph 66) breaks Article 114 into three separate offenses, each with its own elements and mental state requirement.
Reckless endangerment
Any person subject to the UCMJ who engages in conduct that is wrongful and reckless or wanton and is likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm to another person. This is the broadest provision. It doesn’t specify a weapon, a vehicle, or any particular mechanism. Any conduct meeting the recklessness-plus-likely-harm standard qualifies.
“Reckless or wanton” means the accused was aware that their conduct created a substantial and unjustifiable risk but chose to proceed anyway. This is a higher threshold than negligence (which requires only that a reasonable person would have recognized the risk) but lower than intentional conduct (which requires purpose). “Likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm” sets the severity threshold. Minor injury risk isn’t enough. The conduct must create a realistic probability of catastrophic physical harm.
Practical examples: throwing heavy objects from a barracks roof into a populated area, engaging in unauthorized live-fire exercises without safety controls, street racing on a military installation, handling explosives in violation of safety protocols near other personnel. The common thread is voluntary conduct creating foreseeable danger to others, where the accused was aware of the risk and proceeded regardless.
Negligent discharge of a firearm
Any person who, through negligence, discharges a firearm under circumstances such as to endanger human life. Two elements beyond the discharge itself: negligence (failure to exercise reasonable care in handling the weapon) and circumstances that endangered human life (someone was in the path of danger or could have been).
This offense bridges the gap between accidental discharge, which may not be prosecutable if no negligence was involved, and reckless discharge, which requires awareness of the risk. The service member who cleans a weapon without properly clearing it first, resulting in a discharge in a barracks room, has committed negligent discharge if other personnel were in the area. The prosecution must prove the failure of care, not intent to endanger.
In a military environment saturated with firearms, from individual weapons to crew-served systems, negligent discharges are a persistent safety problem. Range incidents, clearing barrel violations, and mishandled weapons during field operations generate Article 114(b) charges with regularity. The offense provides accountability for the specific moment where carelessness with a lethal instrument endangered life, without requiring the higher mental state that reckless endangerment demands.
Carrying a concealed weapon
Any person who unlawfully carries a concealed weapon. “Unlawfully” means without authorization from competent military authority. Military regulations generally restrict the carrying of concealed weapons on military installations regardless of civilian concealed carry permits. State-issued permits typically have no effect on military installations, where weapons policies are set by installation commanders under their authority to regulate conduct within their jurisdictions.
This offense applies both on and off installation when military regulations prohibit the conduct. A service member who carries a concealed weapon in violation of military regulation, even where state law permits it, commits this offense because “unlawfully” includes violation of military regulations and orders, not just civilian statutes. The interaction between state concealed carry laws and military policy has become increasingly relevant as more states have adopted permissive carry legislation. The UCMJ answer is clear: military policy controls for service members, regardless of what civilian law allows.
Where Article 114 Sits in the Offense Spectrum
Article 114’s three offenses fill specific gaps in the UCMJ’s coverage of dangerous conduct. Reckless endangerment sits below Article 128 (Assault), which requires either an attempt or offer to do bodily harm or an act that is likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm. When dangerous conduct doesn’t rise to assault because there was no intent to harm and no specific victim was targeted, Article 114 provides the charging vehicle.
Negligent discharge sits below Article 118 (Murder) and Article 119 (Manslaughter) on the severity spectrum. If the negligent discharge kills someone, the charge is manslaughter. If it injures someone, the charge may be assault under Article 128. If it endangers but doesn’t harm, Article 114 captures the conduct that could have been catastrophic.
Concealed weapons sits alongside the regulatory offenses under Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation), but with its own codified elements rather than requiring the prosecution to prove a specific order or regulation was violated. The standalone codification simplifies charging and signals that the conduct is serious enough to warrant its own article.
Maximum punishment varies by offense. Reckless endangerment carries the heaviest maximum: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement as a court-martial may direct. Negligent firearm discharge: one year’s confinement. Concealed weapon: bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and one year’s confinement. The gradation tracks the dangerousness of the conduct: creating a realistic probability of death (reckless endangerment) is punished more severely than a moment of negligence (discharge) or a regulatory violation (concealment).
Waiting for someone to get hurt before imposing accountability is a luxury the military cannot afford. A negligent firearm discharge in a barracks. A recklessly operated vehicle on a crowded post. An act of culpable negligence that puts an entire unit at risk. Article 114 intervenes at the danger, before the injury, because in military environments, the window between dangerous conduct and catastrophic harm is often too narrow for reactive justice to be useful.
Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law: Article 114 replaced the obsolete dueling provision with three modern endangerment offenses: reckless endangerment, negligent discharge of a firearm, and carrying a concealed weapon. It covers dangerous conduct that falls between minor infractions and completed harm like assault or manslaughter.
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.