(3) Endangering safety of a command, unit, place, ship, or military property.
(a) That it was the duty of the accused to defend a certain command, unit, place, ship, or certain military property;
(b) That the accused committed certain disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct;
(c) That the accused thereby endangered the safety of the command, unit, place, ship, or military property; and
(d) That this act occurred while the accused was before or in the presence of the enemy.
c. Explanation:
(c) Before the enemy. Whether a person is “before the enemy” is a question of tactical relation, not distance. For example, a member of an anti-aircraft gun crew charged with opposing anticipated attack from the air, or a member of a unit about to move into combat may be before the enemy although miles from the enemy lines. On the other hand, an organization some distance from the front or immediate area of combat which is not a part of a tactical operation then going on or in immediate prospect is not “before or in the presence of the enemy” within the meaning of this article.
(3) Endangering safety of a command, unit, place, ship, or military property.
(a) Neglect. “Neglect” is the absence of conduct which would have been taken by a reasonably careful person in the same or similar circumstances.
(b) Intentional misconduct. “Intentional misconduct” does not include a mere error in judgment.