Skip to content
The FormationAccountability Project
UNOFFICIAL LEGISLATIVE DISCUSSION DRAFT — NOT INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS.

The UCMJ Reform Initiative · MAPSA 2027

Military Authority Demands Military Accountability.

MAPSA — the Military Accountability and Service Member Protection Act of 2027 — proposes amendments to the Uniform Code of Military Justice that strengthen accountability for criminal maltreatment, protect lawful military leadership, and establish independent investigative and prosecutorial safeguards.

Proposed military justice reform

Accountability Without Compromising Justice.

“Protecting service members from unlawful maltreatment. Protecting lawful leadership. Preserving due process.”

The Formation Accountability Project proposes a comprehensive approach to strengthening military accountability under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The proposed reforms examine gaps in existing protections against bullying, hazing, cruelty, oppression, maltreatment, and retaliation.

But meaningful accountability requires more than expanding criminal liability.

It requires clear legal standards, impartial investigations, safeguards against misuse, meaningful victim assistance, protection of lawful command authority, and fair treatment of individuals accused of misconduct.

The framework is designed around a central principle: Military justice must protect those who report wrongdoing, those who exercise lawful authority, and those whose rights are implicated by an investigation.

Centerpiece reform · Current statute: 10 U.S.C. § 893

Article 93 — Abuse of Military Authority, Cruelty, Oppression, and Maltreatment

Today, Article 93 prohibits cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to the accused's orders. The proposed Act would replace it with a structured article of five parts.

Article 93(a)Abuse of Military Authority

A distinct criminal offense for knowingly and wrongfully using military authority, with specific intent, to accomplish a prohibited purpose.

  • Compelling unlawful conduct
  • Knowingly depriving a person of a specific legal right or protection
  • Imposing or threatening official adverse action known to be unlawful
  • Obstructing or punishing communications protected by federal military law
  • Objectively severe intimidation, humiliation, or degradation unrelated to a legitimate military purpose

Proposed: 2 to 8 years of confinement and mandatory punitive separation upon conviction by general court-martial.

Article 93(b)Cruelty, Oppression, and Maltreatment

Keeps protection for persons subject to the accused's orders and adds objectively severe, wrongful bullying, harassment, intimidation, or degradation — regardless of rank, including between peers.

  • Sustained course of conduct: two or more distinct qualifying acts
  • Single severe act: a credible threat of unlawful physical harm, unlawful restraint, serious coercion, or comparably severe maltreatment
  • Severity judged from a reasonable person in the affected person's position
  • Rank alone neither establishes nor defeats liability

Proposed: 2 to 8 years of confinement and mandatory punitive separation.

Article 93(c)Aggravated Offenses

An underlying 93(a) or 93(b) offense becomes aggravated when the government separately alleges and proves at least one aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt.

  • Sustained severe misconduct
  • Deliberate exploitation of command or supervisory authority
  • Threats or obstruction of protected reporting
  • Serious bodily injury
  • Permanent disability or disfigurement
  • Serious psychological injury
  • Interference with necessary medical or behavioral health care
  • Credible threats of death or serious bodily harm
  • Serious endangerment

Proposed: 5 to 15 years of confinement and mandatory punitive separation.

Article 93(d)Criminal Maltreatment Resulting in Death

Every element must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Suicide alone does not establish criminal liability.

  • The underlying Article 93(a) or 93(b) offense
  • A substantial and unjustifiable risk of death created or materially increased
  • Culpable negligence concerning that risk
  • Actual causation
  • Proximate causation
  • The death fell within the foreseeable scope of that risk

Proposed: 5 to 30 years of confinement and mandatory punitive separation.

Article 93(e)–(g)Definitions and Legal Safeguards

Statutory definitions, protection of lawful military leadership, and the article's relationship to other offenses.

  • Lawful orders, authorized discipline, rigorous lawful training, good-faith evaluations, and legitimate command decisions are not criminalized by themselves
  • Ordinary negligence, mistakes, or disagreement with a lawful decision do not satisfy the offense
  • Other legally supported charges remain available, subject to double-jeopardy and multiplicity protections

Defining the boundary between leadership and maltreatment

The proposed reform seeks to examine and strengthen accountability for prohibited conduct while preserving legitimate command authority. The statutory parts above are displayed as drafted; safeguards described elsewhere on this page that do not appear in that text are labeled as proposed additions requiring legislative review.

  1. 1

    Clear legal standards

    Define prohibited conduct using legally supportable, objective standards.

  2. 2

    Protection against abuse of authority

    Address qualifying conduct involving unlawful maltreatment, including bullying, hazing, and abusive treatment.

  3. 3

    Preservation of lawful leadership

    Protect authorized training, lawful orders, accurate evaluations, corrective instruction, and legitimate disciplinary action.

Proposed sentencing ranges

Punishment comparison

Proposed offenseConfinementPunitive separation
Article 93(a): Abuse of authority2–8 yearsBad-conduct or dishonorable discharge (enlisted) · dismissal (officer)
Article 93(b): Cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment2–8 yearsBad-conduct or dishonorable discharge (enlisted) · dismissal (officer)
Article 93(c): Aggravated misconduct5–15 yearsDishonorable discharge (enlisted) · dismissal (officer)
Article 93(d): Resulting in death5–30 yearsDishonorable discharge (enlisted) · dismissal (officer)
These are proposed statutory sentencing ranges, not existing penalties. Punitive discharge or dismissal depends on whether the accused is an enlisted member or a commissioned officer, and increased punishments would apply only to conduct after the effective date.

Other UCMJ reforms

Other affected provisions

Article 107 — False Official Statements

Article 107 · 10 U.S.C. § 907

Current law: Current law addresses specified false official statements and documents made with intent to deceive.

Proposed: An aggravated offense for knowing, intentional material falsification intended to cause unlawful adverse action, cause substantial material harm, conceal serious misconduct, or obstruct an official proceeding.

  • Personnel evaluations
  • Sworn statements
  • Investigative findings
  • Disciplinary records

Good-faith mistakes and legitimate evaluative disagreements do not by themselves satisfy the proposed aggravated offense.

Article 132 — Retaliation

Article 132 · 10 U.S.C. § 932

Current law: Current law criminally prohibits specified retaliatory personnel actions.

Proposed: Expanded and clarified protection for lawful reporting, investigative interviews, authorized command-climate surveys, communications with oversight authorities, and requests for authorized assistance.

The government must prove retaliatory intent; lawful, independently justified personnel actions remain permissible.

Article 24a — Special Trial Counsel

Article 24a · 10 U.S.C. § 824a

Current law: Current law establishes the Office of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC) for specified covered offenses.

Proposed: Expanded independent prosecutorial disposition authority over Article 93, Article 132, and the proposed aggravated Article 107 offense.

An allegation does not establish probable cause or guilt and does not require prosecution.

Article 52 — Court-Martial Voting

Article 52 · 10 U.S.C. § 852

Current law: Current law generally permits conviction in a members court-martial by concurrence of at least three-fourths of voting members, with special safeguards for capital cases.

Proposed: Unanimous findings of guilty among all voting members.

Implementing rules would need to address deliberations, deadlock, mistrial, retrial, and existing capital-case safeguards.

Article 56 — Sentencing

Article 56 · 10 U.S.C. § 856

Current law: Current law governs court-martial sentencing.

Proposed: Conforming amendments would be needed to implement the proposed Article 93 minimums, maximums, and punitive separations, reconciled with Article 53a.

The draft directs these amendments; it does not yet contain complete Article 56 amendatory language.

Protected Communications — 10 U.S.C. § 1034

Protected Communications · 10 U.S.C. § 1034

Current law: Current law protects specified communications with Members of Congress, inspectors general, and others from reprisal.

Proposed: Protection for qualifying participation in interviews, surveys, disclosures, and investigations, with suspected criminal retaliation referred to the MCIO and OSTC.

Does not authorize unlawful classified disclosures or immunize independently criminal conduct.

Proposed OSTC disposition workflow

  1. 1Allegation
  2. 2Independent investigative assessment
  3. 3Investigation where warranted
  4. 4OSTC review
  5. 5Criminal disposition or appropriate administrative referral

An allegation does not establish probable cause, guilt, or a requirement to prosecute.

Independent death investigations · Title IV

When a Service Member Dies, Every Credible Lead Deserves Examination.

Proposed investigative triggers

  • Qualifying deaths by suicide
  • Deaths of undetermined manner
  • Certain deaths initially classified as accidental
  • Serious nonfatal suicide attempts accompanied by credible information suggesting a covered offense
  1. 1Qualifying incident
  2. 2MCIO independent review
  3. 3Command-climate assessment
  4. 4Article 93 screening
  5. 5OSTC referral when warranted
  6. 6Independent disposition

Investigation is not prosecution, and prosecution is not conviction. The MCIO investigates, OSTC independently decides disposition, and only a court-martial can return a finding of guilty.

A death by suicide does not, by itself, establish criminal wrongdoing or causation.

Sentencing & accountability · Sections 305–307

Administrative accountability provisions

Sec. 305(a)

Independent screening before proceedings

After an OSTC declination, specific articulable evidence must satisfy the initiation threshold through documented independent screening. An allegation, declination, or investigative titling alone is insufficient.

Sec. 305(d)

Procedural protections

Written notice, counsel, meaningful evidence access, a hearing, written findings, and independent review.

Sec. 305(c)

Separation and individualized characterization

Separation follows a final qualifying finding. Characterization is determined under applicable standards after individualized consideration; under other than honorable conditions is not automatic.

Sec. 306

Permanent service disqualification

Proposed permanent disqualification while the qualifying finding remains valid. A routine waiver cannot be used solely to circumvent it, subject to constitutional requirements and lawful correction.

Sec. 307

Accurate discharge documentation

Standardized separation documentation and procedures to correct records.

Administrative findings are not criminal convictions. Formal separation proceedings require the updated bill's documented independent initiation determination.

Safeguards against misuse

Accountability Must Work Both Ways.

Proposed legislative addition — requires legislative review

“Could the proposed Article 93 amendment be weaponized against commanders, NCOs, or service members who are simply exercising lawful authority?”

Any complaint or investigative system carries some risk of misuse.

The proposed framework seeks to reduce that risk through objective legal standards, impartial fact-finding, procedural safeguards, and appropriate oversight.

Lawful orders, legitimate corrective instruction, accurate performance evaluations, and authorized disciplinary actions should not become criminal merely because they are unpopular or disputed.

At the same time, supervisory authority should not provide immunity for conduct that satisfies the elements of prohibited maltreatment.

The objective is to distinguish legitimate leadership from unlawful conduct through evidence and applicable law.

Lawful leadership

  • Issuing lawful orders.
  • Enforcing military standards.
  • Conducting authorized training.
  • Providing legitimate corrective instruction.
  • Documenting performance deficiencies.
  • Issuing accurate evaluations.
  • Initiating authorized administrative actions.
  • Applying lawful discipline.

Potentially prohibited conduct

  • Unlawful humiliation or degrading treatment.
  • Abuse of supervisory authority.
  • Unlawful punishment disguised as training.
  • Threats or intimidation.
  • Retaliatory misuse of personnel processes.
  • Conduct meeting the elements of prohibited cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment.

These lists are illustrative. Context and the applicable legal elements determine whether specific conduct is lawful.

Six safeguards

  1. 1

    Objective legal standards.

  2. 2

    Presumption of innocence.

  3. 3

    Impartial investigations.

  4. 4

    Good-faith reporting protections.

  5. 5

    Appropriate consequences for knowingly fabricated allegations.

  6. 6

    Documentation and independent oversight.

“An allegation is not a conviction. An unsubstantiated allegation is not necessarily a false allegation.”

Investigative capacity

Every Report Deserves Assessment. Not Every Report Requires a Full Criminal Investigation.

Proposed legislative addition — requires legislative review

“Won't expanding Article 93 burden military criminal investigative organizations with potentially frivolous complaints?”

Expanding criminal liability without considering investigative capacity could increase the workload of military criminal investigators.

The proposed framework addresses this concern through a structured intake and referral process.

Reports would be documented and assessed by appropriately authorized personnel. Allegations requiring MCIO investigation under applicable law or policy would receive the necessary referral.

Other matters could be directed to authorized administrative, Inspector General, or personnel processes when appropriate.

This approach is intended to preserve investigative capacity without discouraging reporting or allowing commanders to suppress allegations.

Investigative response flowchart

  1. 1

    Report received

    Document the allegation and identify immediate safety concerns.

  2. 2

    Initial assessment

    Review jurisdiction, alleged conduct, available information, mandatory reporting requirements, and conflicts of interest.

  3. 3

    Appropriate referral

    Route to one of three pathways.

    • MCIO criminal investigation.
    • Authorized independent or administrative investigation.
    • Appropriate personnel or command process.
  4. 4

    Documentation and oversight

    Record decisions, referral rationale, responsible authorities, and review mechanisms.

  5. 5

    Reassessment

    Allow reconsideration when new evidence emerges or a potential screening error is identified.

Critical safeguard: Screening must never permit commanders or other officials to suppress allegations that require criminal investigation under applicable law.

Protecting investigated personnel

An Investigation Should Not Be Mistaken for a Conviction.

Proposed legislative addition — requires legislative review

“If a service member is titled or indexed by an MCIO, couldn't that negatively affect their military career even if they are never prosecuted?”

Yes. Investigative records can have consequences for personnel and security reviews, even when no criminal charges are filed.

Titling identifies an individual as a subject in a military criminal investigative report. Indexing permits authorized retrieval of certain investigative information.

Neither action, by itself, establishes guilt.

The proposed framework should provide appropriate post-investigation review, accurate documentation of investigative dispositions, and meaningful access to correction or expungement procedures when the governing legal standards are satisfied.

Important distinction

An Office of Special Trial Counsel decision declining prosecution does not automatically require an MCIO to remove a person from investigative records.

Correction or expungement requires the applicable statutory and regulatory criteria to be satisfied.

Proposed post-investigation review

  1. Stage 1Investigation completed.
  2. Stage 2Prosecutorial or other authorized disposition documented.
  3. Stage 3Titling and indexing reviewed under applicable standards.
  4. Stage 4Qualifying records corrected or expunged when legally warranted.
  5. Stage 5Appropriate notification and review rights provided.

Four protections

  • No presumption of guilt from titling alone.
  • Accurate documentation of final disposition.
  • Access to legally authorized correction and expungement procedures.
  • Protection against adverse action based solely on investigative designation where prohibited by law.

Current titling and indexing practice is governed by DoD Instruction 5505.07 and applicable federal law; see Legal References below.

Independent legal representation

A Right to Be Heard. A Right to Counsel.

Proposed legislative addition — requires legislative review

“Should victims of serious military maltreatment have access to independent legal representation?”

The Formation Accountability Project proposes extending eligibility for Special Victims' Counsel or equivalent independent victims' counsel to qualifying victims of serious military maltreatment.

Independent legal assistance would help service members understand their rights, reporting options, available protective measures, and potential remedies.

Representation would not require a complainant to prove that a crime occurred before seeking legal advice.

Counsel would represent the client's legal interests while respecting the separate responsibilities of investigators, prosecutors, and commanders.

Existing law (10 U.S.C. § 1044e) provides Special Victims' Counsel to certain eligible victims; extension to maltreatment victims is a proposal.

Proposed representation services

  1. 1

    Confidential legal consultation.

  2. 2

    Reporting options and legal rights.

  3. 3

    Investigative interview assistance.

  4. 4

    Retaliation and reprisal concerns.

  5. 5

    MPO and expedited transfer requests.

  6. 6

    Administrative proceedings and available remedies.

Additional policy question

Should qualifying representation continue after military separation when allegations or related proceedings remain unresolved?

A proposed issue requiring express statutory consideration.

Reporting options

Seeking Help Should Not Require an Immediate Decision About Formal Investigation.

Proposed legislative addition — requires legislative review

The proposed framework would establish reporting options for qualifying military maltreatment allegations, modeled in principle on aspects of existing military sexual assault response procedures.

The objective is to allow eligible service members to obtain appropriate support and legal advice while providing clear pathways for formal reporting and investigation.

Restricted reporting — proposed

  • Confidential support within defined legal limits.
  • Qualifying independent legal assistance.
  • Medical and mental health support.
  • Protected documentation through authorized personnel.
  • No automatic ordinary investigative referral solely from the protected disclosure, subject to mandatory exceptions.
  • Opportunity for later conversion to unrestricted reporting.

Unrestricted reporting — proposed

  • Formal reporting and assessment.
  • Appropriate investigative referral.
  • Access to qualifying legal assistance.
  • Protective measures and retaliation safeguards.
  • Documentation and appropriate status information.
  • Applicable investigative and disposition procedures.

Important legal limitations

Restricted reporting would not be absolute confidentiality. Mandatory reporting exceptions, safety threats, and independent investigative discovery could still lead to investigation. The legislation would need to define:

  • • Eligible offenses and individuals.
  • • Authorized recipients.
  • • Confidentiality and privilege.
  • • Mandatory reporting exceptions.
  • • Independent investigative discovery.
  • • Records protection.
  • • Conversion procedures.
  • • Interactions with command and MCIO responsibilities.

Implementation recommendation

Consider a dedicated Maltreatment Response Coordinator function with appropriate training, funding, and oversight. Existing sexual assault response personnel should not be assumed able to absorb these responsibilities without additional authorization or resources.

Immediate safety and protection

Protection Should Not Have to Wait for Prosecution.

Proposed legislative addition — requires legislative review

“Should qualifying victims of military maltreatment be entitled to protective measures while an investigation is underway?”

The proposed framework would provide qualifying service members with access to prompt safety assessments and consideration of appropriate protective measures.

These could include Military Protective Orders, no-contact restrictions, temporary duty adjustments, and other authorized safety arrangements.

Protective action should not depend exclusively on a completed investigation or a prosecutorial decision.

Proposed MPO safeguards

  • Prompt individualized safety assessment.
  • Consideration of each subject separately.
  • Appropriate documentation of restrictions.
  • Legally authorized issuance and enforcement.
  • Periodic review of necessity.
  • Appropriate notice and review procedures.
  • Protection against retaliation for requesting safety measures.

Important limitation

An MPO should not automatically be issued against every named subject. Protective restrictions must be supported by individualized circumstances, appropriate authority, and proportionality.

Existing authority: 10 U.S.C. § 1567a and service regulations govern MPOs today.

Protecting service member safety and career continuity

No One Should Have to Choose Between Personal Safety and Continuing Their Military Career.

Proposed legislative addition — requires legislative review

Option 1

Local reassignment

Transfer to another unit, section, workplace, or supervisory chain at the same installation when appropriate.

Option 2

Expedited PCS

Request expedited transfer to another installation when legally authorized and operationally appropriate.

Option 3

Emergency safety move

Provide immediate temporary protective arrangements when an urgent safety concern warrants action.

Proposed timeline

  1. Day 0

    Request submitted and immediate safety concerns assessed.

  2. Within 5 calendar days

    Initial expedited transfer decision.

  3. Within 5 additional calendar days

    Review of a denied request by the designated general or flag officer authority.

These timelines are proposed extensions modeled on existing statutory procedures for certain qualifying victims (10 U.S.C. § 673).

Probable-cause trigger

When an authorized investigator establishes probable cause concerning qualifying maltreatment, require documented reassessment of:

  • Existing protective measures.
  • Continued contact between parties.
  • Retaliation concerns.
  • Local reassignment options.
  • Expedited PCS eligibility.
  • Whether moving the subject rather than the complainant is more appropriate.

Important: Probable cause is not a conviction and should not automatically mandate an MPO or transfer.

“Protective measures should be designed to minimize unnecessary harm to the complainant's career, professional development, training opportunities, and assignment prospects.”

Due process and fair investigations

Fairness Must Apply to Everyone.

Existing law

The proposed accountability framework must preserve the rights of individuals accused of misconduct.

A fair system does not presume guilt, punish individuals merely because allegations were made, or treat unsupported complaints as established facts.

Investigative independence and procedural fairness protect both complainants and accused personnel.

Core protections

  • Presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings.
  • Applicable constitutional and military justice rights.
  • Impartial investigation.
  • Appropriate consideration of exculpatory evidence.
  • Accurate investigative records.
  • Legally available review and correction procedures.
  • Protection against improper retaliation or reprisal.
  • Appropriate review of restrictive measures.

Constitutional and UCMJ rights of the accused exist today; the framework would preserve them, not create them.

“Protecting victims and protecting due process are complementary obligations.”

Continuity of justice

Accountability Should Not End When Service Does.

Proposed legislative addition — requires legislative review

Military separation may occur before allegations of misconduct are fully resolved.

The proposed framework should examine procedures for preserving evidence, maintaining appropriate investigative continuity, protecting relevant records, and providing legally authorized assistance after separation.

The objective is to prevent avoidable gaps in accountability and support while respecting military jurisdiction, statutory eligibility, and due process.

Proposed policy considerations

  • Investigative continuity after separation.
  • Preservation of relevant records.
  • Appropriate notification of investigative outcomes.
  • Continued access to qualifying legal assistance.
  • Protection of legally available remedies.
  • Coordination with relevant veteran support systems.
  • Review of jurisdictional limitations.

Frequently asked questions

Questions About the Proposed Reforms

1.Could the proposed Article 93 amendment be weaponized?

Any complaint system carries some risk of misuse. The framework seeks to reduce it through objective legal standards, impartial fact-finding, procedural safeguards, and oversight, while ensuring supervisory authority does not provide immunity for conduct meeting the elements of maltreatment.

Read the full section
2.Would this criminalize lawful corrective training or counseling?

The framework is designed to protect authorized training, legitimate corrective instruction, accurate evaluations, and lawful discipline. Conduct becomes potentially prohibited only when it satisfies the applicable legal elements, judged in context.

Read the full section
3.Would this undermine command authority?

Preserving lawful leadership is one of the framework's three core objectives. Lawful orders and authorized disciplinary actions should not become criminal because they are unpopular or disputed.

Read the full section
4.Could frivolous complaints overwhelm MCIOs?

The framework proposes structured intake, assessment, and referral so that only matters requiring MCIO investigation under law or policy are referred there, while other matters go to administrative, IG, or personnel processes.

Read the full section
5.Does every report require a criminal investigation?

No. Every report would be documented and assessed, but referral depends on jurisdiction, the alleged conduct, and mandatory requirements. Screening must never be used to suppress allegations that require criminal investigation.

Read the full section
6.What happens when an allegation cannot be substantiated?

An unsubstantiated allegation is not necessarily a false allegation, and it is not a finding of guilt. The disposition should be documented accurately, and review and correction procedures should remain available.

Read the full section
7.What protects personnel from knowingly fabricated allegations?

Proposed safeguards include impartial investigation, the presumption of innocence, documentation and oversight, and appropriate consequences for knowingly fabricated allegations under existing law such as Articles 107 and 131, while protecting good-faith reporting.

Read the full section
8.Can an MCIO investigation affect someone's career?

Yes. Investigative records can affect personnel and security reviews even without charges. Titling and indexing do not establish guilt, and the framework proposes post-investigation review and access to correction procedures.

Read the full section
9.Does an OSTC declination automatically remove titling or indexing?

No. A declination does not automatically require removal. Correction or expungement requires the applicable statutory and regulatory criteria to be satisfied.

Read the full section
10.Would qualifying victims receive independent legal counsel?

The project proposes extending Special Victims' Counsel or equivalent counsel eligibility to qualifying victims of serious maltreatment. This would be a proposed change to existing law, not a current guarantee.

Read the full section
11.What is the difference between restricted and unrestricted reporting?

As proposed, restricted reporting would allow support and legal advice without automatic ordinary investigative referral, within defined legal limits and mandatory exceptions; it would not be absolute confidentiality. Unrestricted reporting would trigger formal assessment and appropriate referral.

Read the full section
12.Can a complainant request an MPO against multiple subjects?

A request could address multiple subjects, but each subject would be considered separately. MPOs should not be issued automatically against every named subject; they require individualized circumstances, authority, and proportionality.

Read the full section
13.Can a service member request reassignment or expedited PCS?

The framework proposes local reassignment, expedited PCS, and emergency safety moves for qualifying maltreatment victims, with timelines modeled on existing procedures under 10 U.S.C. § 673.

Read the full section
14.Must probable cause exist before emergency protection is available?

No. Protective action should not depend exclusively on a completed investigation or prosecutorial decision. A probable-cause finding would instead trigger documented reassessment of existing measures, and would not automatically mandate an MPO or transfer.

Read the full section
15.What protects the rights of accused personnel?

The presumption of innocence, applicable constitutional and military justice rights, impartial investigation, consideration of exculpatory evidence, accurate records, review and correction procedures, and review of restrictive measures.

Read the full section
16.What happens if someone separates before an investigation concludes?

The framework proposes examining investigative continuity, record preservation, outcome notification, and continued access to qualifying legal assistance, subject to jurisdictional limits and due process. These are proposed policy considerations.

Read the full section

The purpose of military justice

Protect the Mission. Protect Lawful Leadership. Protect Those Who Serve.

Military accountability must be built upon clear standards, fair investigations, meaningful protections, and respect for the rights of everyone involved.

The Formation Accountability Project seeks to strengthen accountability for prohibited maltreatment without compromising lawful command authority, investigative integrity, or due process.

A system worthy of the people it serves must protect those who report misconduct in good faith, those who lead lawfully, and those who face allegations requiring impartial review.

Accountability is not the opposite of military discipline.

It is one of the foundations upon which legitimate military discipline depends.

Read the proposed Article 93 amendmentExplore the research

Choose your reading level

Plain-English reforms or exact legal language

Start with the practical reform guide, or open the complete 37-section legal library for exact supplied-bill text, source notes, and document links.

Read the plain-English guideOpen the legal-text comparison

Legislative resource center

Full Proposed Bill

Proposed Federal Bill

Updated 16-page, eight-title discussion draft of the Military Accountability and Service Member Protection Act of 2027 (MAPSA), including maltreatment response coordination, reporting options, victim legal assistance, protective measures, and investigative-record review. Not introduced legislation; formal legislative-counsel review is required.

Open PDF

Official U.S. Code

"The strength of a military formation is not measured solely by its ability to follow orders. It is also measured by the integrity of those entrusted to give them."

MAPSA seeks to strengthen military justice through clear legal standards, independent accountability, due process, and protection of lawful military leadership.

Explore the Proposed Legislation