Article 107 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) deals with false official statements and false swearing, meaning you’re accused of knowingly making untrue statements or declarations in official matters. Facing charges under this article can be an overwhelming and distressing experience.

It’s normal to feel anxious, fearful, and uncertain about your future when facing such serious allegations. You might be worried about your career, your reputation, and what comes next.

Speaking with an experienced military defense attorney can provide you peace of mind knowing you have a strong advocate on your side. We understand the emotional turmoil you’re going through and are equipped to provide compassionate and knowledgeable support during this difficult time.

At National Security Law Firm, we believe in fighting for your rights and ensuring you have a strong defense. Contact us today to get the help you deserve and take the first step toward protecting your future.

Article 107: Making False Statements Guide

Unparalleled Skill in Military Law: Why Choose Us

Brett O’Brien

When facing Article 107 charges or other UCMJ-related issues, you need more than just a lawyer – you need a dedicated advocate with deep military law experience. Our firm brings together a team of attorneys who don’t just understand military law; they’ve lived it.

Our legal professionals have served as JAG officers, military prosecutors, and defense counsel. This firsthand experience gives us unique insight into how the military justice system operates from the inside. We’ve stood where you’re standing now, and we’ve sat on the other side of the courtroom. This dual perspective allows us to anticipate prosecution strategies and craft powerful defenses tailored to your specific situation.

When you choose National Security Law Firm, you’re not just getting a lawyer – you’re gaining a team of passionate advocates who will fight tirelessly for your best interests. Let us put our unique military law experience to work for you.

What is Article 107?

Article 107 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice falls under the punitive articles of the UCMJ, which define various military-specific criminal offenses. Article 107 specifically prohibits service members from knowingly making false statements in official matters or swearing falsely under oath.

This article is part of the broader category of offenses related to integrity and honesty within the military justice system.

Violations of Article 107 can result in serious consequences, including court-martial, punitive discharge, confinement, and other penalties, reflecting the military’s emphasis on truthfulness and accurate reporting in official matters.

Article 107 of the UCMJ covers two main offenses:

  • Making false official statements
  • False swearing under oath

These charges are more common than you might think and can have serious consequences for your military career and personal life.

False Official Statements

To make a false official statement, the military must prove:

  • You signed an official document or made an official statement.
  • The document or statement was false.
  • You knew it was false when you made it.
  • You intended to deceive someone.

“Official” statements don’t just mean those made while on duty. They can include statements to civilian law enforcement or even to certain civilian employees performing military functions.

False Swearing

False swearing charges are similar but have some key differences:

  • You took an oath or equivalent.
  • The oath was properly administered by someone with authority.
  • You made a false statement under that oath.
  • You didn’t believe the statement was true at the time.

Unlike false official statements, false swearing doesn’t require an intent to deceive. However, it must involve an oath, which isn’t necessary for false official statements.

Common Scenarios: When Service Members Might Unknowingly Violate Article 107

While most service members strive for honesty, there are situations where they might unintentionally run afoul of Article 107. Understanding these scenarios can help you stay vigilant and avoid potential pitfalls. Here are some common examples:

Routine Paperwork Errors

When filling out daily reports or administrative forms, a service member might accidentally input incorrect information, such as misremembering a date or transposing numbers. While not intentional, if this false information is material to the document’s purpose, it could violate Article 107.

Casual Conversations with Superiors

During informal chats with commanding officers, a service member might exaggerate their accomplishments or downplay mistakes, not realizing these conversations could be considered “official statements” under certain circumstances.

Interactions with Military Police

When questioned about an incident by military police, a service member might instinctively try to protect a fellow soldier by omitting details or providing a misleading account, not fully appreciating the legal implications of their statements.

Medical Appointments

At a routine medical check-up, a service member might underreport their alcohol consumption or overstate their exercise habits, not realizing that these statements to military medical personnel could be considered official.

Equipment Maintenance Logs

A busy technician might rush through maintenance checks and mark all systems as functioning correctly without thoroughly inspecting each one, inadvertently creating a false official record.

Training and Qualification Records

An instructor might round up scores or overlook minor infractions when recording training results, not realizing the potential seriousness of these seemingly small inaccuracies.

Security Clearance Interviews

During the security clearance process, a service member might forget to mention a minor legal infraction from their youth, unintentionally providing incomplete information.

 

Informal Counseling Sessions

In a mentorship meeting with a junior enlisted member, a non-commissioned officer might embellish stories of their own career progression, not considering that this could be viewed as making false official statements.

Leave and Liberty Requests

When applying for leave, a service member might provide an inaccurate reason for their request, thinking it will increase their chances of approval, without realizing the legal implications.

Fitness Reports and Evaluations

When writing evaluations for subordinates, a leader might overstate achievements or underreport shortcomings, not fully appreciating that these documents are considered official statements.

Remember, the key to avoiding these pitfalls is maintaining a commitment to honesty and accuracy in all your military duties, no matter how routine or informal they may seem. When in doubt, it’s always better to seek clarification or admit uncertainty rather than risk providing false information.

If you find yourself in any of these or similar situations, consider consulting with a military legal professional for guidance.

The Investigation Process: From Suspicion to Formal Charges

If you’re suspected of violating Article 107, an experienced attorney who understands the investigation process can help you navigate this challenging situation. Here’s an overview of what typically happens:

  • Initial Reporting: The process usually begins when someone reports a suspected false statement or sworn falsehood. This could be a superior officer, a colleague, or even a civilian working with the military. In some cases, discrepancies in official records might trigger an investigation.
  • Preliminary Inquiry: Upon receiving the report, the command typically conducts a preliminary inquiry. This informal investigation aims to gather basic facts and determine if there’s enough evidence to warrant a full investigation.
  • Appointment of Investigating Officer: If the preliminary inquiry suggests a possible violation, the command will appoint an investigating officer. This is usually a commissioned officer outside your direct chain of command.
  • Article 31 Rights: Before questioning you, the investigating officer must inform you of your rights under Article 31 of the UCMJ. These rights are similar to Miranda rights in civilian law and include the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel.
  • Evidence Gathering: The investigating officer will collect evidence, which may include:
    • Interviews with witnesses
    • Collection of relevant documents
    • Review of electronic records
    • Forensic analysis, if applicable
  • Subject Interview: You may be asked to provide a statement. Remember, you have the right to decline to answer questions and to have an attorney present during questioning.
  • Report Compilation: The investigating officer will compile their findings into a report, typically including a summary of evidence and a recommendation for further action.
  • Command Review: Your commanding officer will review the report and decide on the next steps. These could include:
    • Dismissing the allegations
    • Recommending administrative action
    • Forwarding the case for possible court-martial
  • Preferral of Charges: If the evidence supports it, the military may “prefer” (formally initiate) formal charges against you. This involves your commander signing a charge sheet detailing the specific allegations.
  • Article 32 Hearing: For more serious cases headed to general court-martial, an Article 32 hearing (similar to a civilian grand jury) may be held to determine if there’s enough evidence to proceed to trial.
  • Referral of Charges: If the case moves forward, charges are “referred” (sent) to the appropriate level of court-martial by the convening authority, usually a senior commander.

Throughout this process, remember your rights and the importance of legal counsel. Stay calm, exercise your right to remain silent, and seek legal assistance immediately. An investigation doesn’t automatically mean the military will charge you or find you guilty. With proper legal support, you can navigate this process and work towards the best possible outcome for your situation.

Potential Consequences of Article 107 Violations

The military takes these offenses seriously.

If found guilty, you could face:

  • Dishonorable discharge
  • Forfeiture of all pay and allowances
  • Reduction in rank to E-1
  • Confinement for up to 5 years (false official statements) or 3 years (false swearing)

These penalties can have a lasting impact on your life, both in and out of the military.

Administrative Actions vs. Court-Martial: Understanding Your Case’s Potential Paths

When facing allegations of violating Article 107, your case could proceed down one of two main paths: administrative action or court-martial. Understanding these options and what influences the decision can help you better navigate the process.

 

Administrative Actions

Administrative actions are non-judicial means of addressing misconduct. They include:

  • Counseling statements
  • Letters of reprimand
  • Administrative separation
  • Non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15

Key characteristics of administrative actions:

  • Generally less severe than court-martial.
  • Do not result in federal convictions.
  • Typically faster and less formal than court-martial proceedings.
  • May still have significant career impacts, including potential separation from service.

Court-Martial

A court-martial is a military court. There are three types:

  • Summary court-martial
  • Special court-martial
  • General court-martial

Key characteristics of court-martial:

  • More formal legal proceedings, similar to civilian criminal trials.
  • Can result in more severe punishments, including confinement.
  • Convictions result in federal criminal records.
  • Provide more robust due process protections for the accused.

Several factors can influence whether your case proceeds administratively or to court-martial:

  • Severity of the Alleged Offense: More serious allegations, such as intentional false statements about critical matters, are more likely to result in court-martial.
  • Evidence Strength: Cases with strong, clear evidence may be more likely to proceed to court-martial, while those with ambiguous evidence might be handled administratively.
  • Your Military Record: A strong service record might influence decision-makers to pursue administrative action rather than court-martial, especially for minor or first-time offenses.
  • Command Discretion: Your commanding officer has significant discretion in deciding how to handle the case, based on their assessment of the situation and the unit’s needs.
  • Military Necessity: The current needs of your unit or the broader military mission may influence the decision. For instance, if your skills are critically needed, there might be a preference for quicker administrative resolution.
  • Prior Incidents: If you have a history of similar infractions, your case will likely proceed to court-martial.
  • Impact on Good Order and Discipline: If the alleged false statement significantly undermined unit cohesion or military operations, court-martial might be more likely.
  • Your Cooperation: Your attitude and cooperation during the investigation can influence the command’s approach. Honesty and a willingness to take responsibility might favor administrative action.
  • Legal Advice: The recommendations of the command’s legal advisors (JAG officers) can determine the course of action.
  • Broader Implications: If your case has implications beyond your individual situation (e.g., it exposed systemic issues), it might be more likely to proceed to court-martial to set a precedent.

It’s important to note that these paths are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes, a case might start with administrative action but escalate to court-martial if new evidence emerges or if administrative measures are deemed insufficient.

Your Rights and Representation

Regardless of which path your case takes, you have rights:

  • In administrative proceedings, you generally have the right to submit matters in your defense and consult legal counsel.
  • In court-martial proceedings, you have the right to be represented by an attorney.

If you’re facing Article 107 allegations, seek legal advice early in the process. An experienced military defense attorney can help you understand your options, protect your rights, and potentially influence which path your case takes. Your lawyer’s goal is to achieve the best possible outcome for your career and future, whether through administrative resolution or by mounting a strong defense at court-martial if necessary.

Actions You Should Take Immediately When Facing an Article 107 Charge

If you’re facing Article 107 charges, it’s natural to feel anxious about what lies ahead. Remember that you’re not alone in this process. Many service members have faced similar challenges and come through them successfully with the right legal support.

Take action to protect your rights and your future:

  • Consult a qualified military defense attorney as soon as possible.
  • Don’t discuss your case with anyone except your attorney.
  • Gather any relevant documents or evidence you might have.
  • Write down your recollection of events while they’re fresh in your mind.

Your service to our country is valued and respected. You deserve a strong defense and fair treatment under the law. With the right legal representation, you can navigate this difficult time and work towards the best possible outcome for your case.

How a Military Defense Attorney Can Help

Facing Article 107 charges alone can be overwhelming. An experienced military defense lawyer can:

  • Analyze the evidence against you
  • Identify potential weaknesses in the prosecution’s case
  • Develop a strong defense strategy
  • Ensure your rights are protected throughout the process
  • Negotiate for reduced charges or penalties when appropriate
  • Represent you effectively at court-martial if necessary

Character and Service Record Considerations in Article 107 Cases

When facing charges under Article 107, your past performance and character as a service member can play a significant role in how your case is handled. Your attorney can advocate on your behalf to argue your past performance and character should positively influence the direction of your case and the consequences of your actions. Here’s how your military history might impact the process:

Command Discretion

Your commanding officer has considerable discretion in deciding how to proceed with your case.

A strong service record and positive character references can influence their decision, potentially leading to:

  • Handling the matter administratively rather than through court-martial.
  • Recommending a lesser form of punishment.
  • In some cases, deciding not to pursue charges at all.

Charging Decisions

Prosecutors may consider your service record when deciding which charges to bring and how aggressively to pursue the case. A history of honesty and integrity can support arguments that the alleged false statement was out of character or unintentional.

Pretrial Agreements

If you’re seeking a plea bargain, your exemplary service can be a strong bargaining chip. Prosecutors and convening authorities may be more inclined to offer favorable terms to someone with a history of valuable contributions to the military.

Sentencing Considerations

If your case goes to court-martial and results in a conviction, your service record will be a key factor during the sentencing phase. Positive aspects of your military career, such as combat deployments, awards, or commendations, can be presented as mitigating evidence.

Character Witnesses

Your defense team can call character witnesses, including superior officers and fellow service members, to testify about your reliability, truthfulness, and value to the military. These testimonies can significantly affect how the court perceives you.

Letter of Reprimand vs. Court-Martial

In some cases, a strong service record might persuade your command to handle the situation with a letter of reprimand or other administrative action rather than pursuing a court-martial.

Retention Decisions

If you’re facing administrative separation because of the charges, your prior service record will be a crucial factor in determining whether you should be retained in the military.

Security Clearance Impact

Your history of trustworthiness and reliability can affect your ability to maintain your security clearance, which you need for your military career.

Rehabilitation Potential

Courts and commanders often consider a service member’s potential for continued valuable service. A strong record can demonstrate that you’re worth retaining and rehabilitating within the military system.

Contact National Security Law Firm

Brett O’Brien, Military Defense Attorney

If you’re facing Article 107 charges, work closely with your defense attorney to ensure that your full military record and character are effectively presented and considered throughout the legal process. Your years of honorable service and positive contributions to the military shouldn’t be overlooked when addressing a single alleged misstep.

We don’t believe in one-size-fits-all approaches. Instead, we leverage our combined decades of experience to develop innovative legal strategies that push boundaries and challenge conventional thinking. Our goal is always to secure the best possible outcome for you, whether negotiating for reduced charges, fighting for acquittal at court-martial, or pursuing alternative resolutions protecting your career and future.

Remember, every service member who has worn the uniform has contributed to our nation’s defense, and that service deserves to be acknowledged and considered, even in difficult legal situations. Your service to our country is valued and respected. Now it’s our turn to fight for you. Call our National Security Law Firm, Washington, D.C. office at (800) 235-3645 or contact us online.