In Middendorf v. Henry (425 U.S. 25 [1976]), enlisted members of the Marine Corps, charged with "unauthorized absences" and assault, challenged the authority of the military to try them at summary courts-martial without providing counsel. All of the accused had been expressly apprised of their right to refuse to proceed without counsel and had consented in writing to the summary courts-martial. Explaining the structure of discipline under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Court noted four methods: the general and special courts-martial, similar to civilian judicial proceedings, which have the authority to award "any lawful sentence" including death, bad conduct discharge, six months' confinement at hard labor, forfeiture of two-thirds pay for six months and reduction in grade; an administrative Article 15 proceeding conducted personally by the accused's commanding officer for "minor offenses"; and the summary court-martial, somewhere between the informal Article 15 procedure and the "courtroom-type" procedure of the general and special courts-martial, designed to provide prompt justice for minor offenses. (See Middendorf v. Henry, supra, 425 U.S. at 31-33.)