Article 107 | False Official Statement

Accused of an Article 107 Charge? It’s hurtful when your character is attacked. Don’t go it alone. Military Law Center can help.

Article 107 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) prohibits any person subject to the code from knowingly making a false official statement. This offense is critical to maintaining trust and integrity within the military justice system. It ensures that official records and communications are accurate and reliable, allowing for fair and effective decision-making across all branches of the armed forces.

There are four key elements that prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction under a False Official Statement theory:

1. That the accused signed a certain official document or made a certain official statement;
2. That the document or statement was false in certain particulars;
3. That the accused knew it to be false at the time of signing it or making it; and
4. That the false document or statement was made with the intent to deceive.

There are six key elements that the government must prove to secure a conviction under a False Swearing theory:

1. That the accused took an oath or equivalent; 
2. That the oath or equivalent was administered to the accused in a matter in which such oath or equivalent was required or authorized by law;
3. That the oath or equivalent was administered by a person having authority to do so;
4. That upon this oath or equivalent the accused made or subscribed a certain statement;
5. That the statement was false; and
6. That the accused did not then believe the statement to be true.

The terms found within the elements above have specific definitions.  The following definitions apply:

A. Person Subject to the UCMJ: The offense applies to all individuals bound by the UCMJ, including enlisted personnel, officers, warrant officers, cadets, and midshipmen.

B. Official Statement: An “official statement” can be written or verbal. It encompasses any statement made in the course of duty or to a civilian authority that has a clear and direct connection to the accused’s military obligations. Examples include:

• Statements during investigations or inspections
• Reports and logs
• Military records and documents (e.g., personnel files, medical records)
• Sworn testimony in courts-martial or other official proceedings, like ADSEP Boards
• Statements to law enforcement officials, even civilian authorities, if relevant to military duties

C. Knowledge and Intent: The accused must have known the statement was false at the time of making it. Additionally, there must be proof of intent to deceive. This means the accused purposely aimed to mislead the recipient of the statement.

D. Material Gain: The expectation of material gain is not an element of this offense.  However, such expectation or lack of it is circumstantial evidence bearing on the element of intent to deceive.

In the case of United States v. Day, 66 M.J. 172 (C.A.A.F. 2008), the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces determined false statements made to on-base emergency medical personnel were violations of Article 107 (false official statement) but false statements made to off-base 911 operators were not.  In United States v. Day, the accused found his young son in his crib with a blanket over his face.  The child was motionless and needed to be resuscitated.  He tried and failed and called 911 45-minutes after he found his child motionless.

The accused told the 911 operator his son was lying face down, with blue lips, and was motionless.  He then told the on-base emergency medical responders his son was lying face down as well.  The accused’s son was actually lying on his back and the blanket that the accused put there earlier in the night was on top of the child’s face preventing him from breathing.

The critical distinction in determining which statement violated Article 107 is not whether the recipient of a statement is civilian or military, but whether the statements relate to the official duties of either the speaker or the hearer, and whether those official duties fall within the scope of the UCMJ’s reach.

You can read the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Opinion here.

An accusation of making a false official statement (Article 107) can be a serious blow to your character and career. Military Law Center can help.

We understand the complexities of military law and will fight for your rights. Our experienced team of former military judge advocates (JAGs) has a proven track record of success defending service members facing Article 107 charges.

Don’t face these challenges alone. Contact Military Law Center today for a free consultation. We’ll answer your questions, explore your options, and develop a personalized defense strategy to protect your future.

An Article 107 charge can feel daunting to defend against, but there are potential defenses available to fight the accusation:

Not False:
If the accused’s statement is truthful and others are mistaken as to its truth, a defense would be to prove in court the statement is truthful.

For example, if the accused told her command she lived in Oceanside, California even though her information in DEERS still showed San Diego as her last known address, the truthful statement as to her residence would be a defense to Article 107. 

Lacked Knowledge of the Falsity:
If the accused lacked the knowledge that the statement was false and reasonably believed the statement to be true, this could be a defense at trial.  

For example, if the accused’s spouse told him he needed to pick up their child at 2:00pm for a Camp Pendleton doctor’s appointment and then told the accused’s superior that, it would not be a false official statement if the spouse lied to the accused for a surprise afternoon date to San Diego, California.  However, participating in the date once the accused knew the truth could be a different violation of the UCMJ.

No Intent to Deceive: 
If the accused has no intent to deceive, then this would be a defense.  

For example, if the accused submitted a form to update their Leave and Earnings Statement with the rank they were expected to promote to later that day, it would not be with the intent to deceive if for some reason the promotion does not happen until days later.  While the statement would be false at the time, if it was to prevent unnecessary delay in processing the paperwork after the promotion, the false statement was not intended to deceive anyone.

The maximum punishment for Article 107 is a dishonorable discharge, five years confinement, total forfeitures of pay and allowances, reduction in rank to E-1, and other lawful punishments.

The potential penalties for making a false official statement are severe and depend on the seriousness of the offense. A court-martial can impose a range of punishments, including:

• Dishonorable discharge: 
  This is the most severe punishment, signifying a complete separation from the military with a negative characterization of service.
• Confinement: 
  The accused may face imprisonment for a specific period determined by the court-martial.
• Reduction in rank: 
  This could involve a demotion to a lower enlisted grade or officer rank.
• Forfeiture of pay and allowances: 
  The accused may lose a portion of their military pay and benefits.
• Bad-conduct discharge: 
  This is a less severe form of separation with a negative characterization, potentially impacting future employment opportunities.
• Reprimand or admonition: 
  These are non-judicial punishments involving official censure of the accused’s actions.

An Article 107 charge and conviction can have devastating consequences beyond the courtroom. It can damage your reputation within the military, stall your career progression, and potentially hinder future job opportunities in the civilian sector.  Because a false official statement is a crime of moral turpitude (relating to honesty), it could cause issues in obtaining loans in the future.

Facing an Article 107 accusation can be a frustrating and stressful experience. At Military Law Center, our attorneys understand the challenges you’re facing, and we’re here to help. Here’s what sets us apart:

• Experienced Military Defense Attorneys:
  Our team is comprised of former military judge advocates (JAGs) with a deep understanding of military law and the UCMJ. We’ve successfully defended countless service members facing all kinds of allegations, and we know how to litigate the complexities of military justice from start to finish.
• Personalized Attention:
  We care for every client as an individual. We’ll take the time to understand your specific situation and develop a personalized defense strategy designed to achieve the best possible outcome.
• Aggressively Protecting Your Rights:
  We’re committed to fighting for your rights and ensuring you receive fair treatment throughout the legal process. We’ll explore all available defenses and work tirelessly to protect your career and reputation.
• Clear Communication:
  We understand legalese can be confusing. We’ll keep you informed about the progress of your case and explain everything in clear, understandable terms.
• Free Consultation:
  We offer a free consultation to discuss your situation and answer any questions you may have. This allows you to make informed decisions about your defense strategy.

Don’t Face Article 107 Charges Alone. Military Law Center Can Help.

An Article 107 charge can stall your military career and damage your reputation. But you don’t have to fight by yourself. Military Law Center has a proven track record of successfully defending service members facing the most serious charges. Our experienced military law attorneys understand the military justice system and will work tirelessly to protect your rights and achieve the best possible outcome for your case.

Contact Military Law Center today for a free consultation.
We’ll stand by your side and fight for you.

Call Us Today – (760) 536-9038