Article 107 False Official Statements

The Uniform Code of Military Justice clearly outlines and prohibits any individual under military jurisdiction from providing false official statements, falling under what is known as Article 107.

A false official statement is any statement that inhibits the righteous duties of any government official. It is one of the most commonly alleged offenses under the court-martial manual and includes any and all statements and/or documents made in the line of duty.

UCMJ Article 107 was established to uphold the integrity and validity of military communications and documentation. Enforcing a reliable system of official records through Article 107 is essential as it ensures fair and just proceedings and disciplined decision-making across all service branches.

Elements Required to Prove a False Official Statement Charge

There are several elements the government must possess to establish an Article 107 violation. Prosecutors must establish four key facts beyond a reasonable doubt:

• That the accused signed a certain official document or made a certain official statement: The individual needs to have made an official statement or signed an official document that the prosecution to point to as physical evidence. This is the first element required in all Article 107 violations. Without this element, there is no violation under Article 107.
• That the document or statement was false in certain particulars: The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the information provided by the individual was false in some way. This doesn’t prove the intent to mislead, but the fact that the information described under the official document or statement was indisputably false.
• That the accused knew it to be false at the time of signing it or making it: The individual who made the false or misleading official statement or document must have done so with the knowledge that the information they were providing was incorrect or misleading. Proving prior knowledge of falsehood is key to building an Article 107 case.
• That the false document or statement was made with the intent to deceive: The individual who provided the false or misleading official statement or document not only knew it was false, but also had the intent to deceive a government official. Proving prior intent is the prosecution’s most important task when establishing that an Article 107 violation occurred.

False Swearing/Perjury: Additional Proof Elements

Also falling under Article 107 UCMJ, “false swearing” is an offense that is closely related to providing a false official statement. However, there are some additional elements that the prosecution needs to prove in order to pursue a false swearing charge:

• The accused can be proven to have sworn an oath or its lawful equivalent: There is a verifiable record of the accused swearing an oath in an official context.
• The oath or equivalent was legally required or authorized: Not only did the accused make the statement, but the individual was required under law or in their official capacity to do so.
• A person with legal authority administered the oath: The oath was given by someone with the imbued legal authority to take and receive oaths from government officials. This person is officially authorized under UCMJ legal doctrine.
• The accused made or subscribed a statement under that oath: While under a legal oath from a valid authority, the individual then proceeded to make or validate a statement or information as true.
• The accused made a statement that was provably false: The statement made by the accused individual under legal oath was verifiably false in nature.
• The accused did not believe the statement to be true at the time: The individual in question made the statement knowing that it was indeed false. Prior knowledge is key to proving that a false statement under Article 107 was made.

All of these elements must be proven true in order to pursue a valid claim of an Article 107 violation of false official statement and false swearing.

Penalties for Violations of UCMJ Article 107

The penalties for any convicted violations of UCMJ 107 are wide-reaching and can be very serious. Not only will you be subject to punishment under the UCMJ legal code, but there can be a significant impact on your life outside of the military as well.

UCMJ Article 107 punishment maximums include:

• Dishonorable Discharge – An immediate end to your military career with a stigmatized service record. This can significantly alter your life trajectory, ending a fruitful career and dramatically impacting future employment opportunities. Many contractors who deal with veterans want nothing to do with an individual with a dishonorable discharge on their record.
• Confinement – An accused and convicted servicemember can face up to five years in prison under UCMJ Article 107, depending on the severity of the offense. Many judges want to make examples out of violators, meaning they seek the maximum penalty where they can.
• Reduction in Rank – The court can demote the servicemember to the lowest enlisted grade (E-1). If you aren’t discharged entirely, you may face a severe reduction in rank and the benefits that accompany your position. Everything you’ve worked for over the years could be reduced to almost nothing.
• Forfeiture of Pay and Allowances – Military pay and entitlements may be fully or partially lost. Your pay may be severely reduced to match your demotion, or, in the event of a dishonorable discharge, you may have your entitlements cut entirely.
• Bad-Conduct Discharge – Less serious than a dishonorable discharge, this is still a serious and very negative separation status. It can severely impact your transition to civilian life in terms of job opportunities and receipt of benefits.
• Reprimands – Non-judicial punishments may also be imposed. While less severe, they will remain as part of the individual’s service record and can impact future promotion opportunities and benefits/entitlements. These can include written or verbal counseling, administrative reprimands, or a letter of admonishment, among others.

UCMJ false official statement violations can result in serious legal consequences for any accused service members. Contact Conway & Associates to find out how we can plan and organize your defense.

The Personal Fallout from Article 107 Convictions

Service members convicted of Article 107 violations don’t only face legal consequences from the military and civilian criminal justice system. Other outcomes can affect your personal and professional  life, including but not limited to:

• Qualifying for certain civilian employment – Many jobs require a clean record to have a good shot at being hired. Since Article 107 offenses involve dishonesty, this can severely impact your employability in certain industries.
• Obtain security clearances – Even if you’re allowed to stay in the military, your potential for a security clearance is harshly diminished. This can also apply in civilian industries such as private security or corporate environments.
• Secure financial loans or rental agreements – Many landlords and financial institutions take a close look at military records to ascertain the validity of loan or rental agreements. An Article 107 violation may showcase dishonesty, impacting your chances for approval.
• Professional licensing program admission – Many professions require a license to pursue a career in that industry. Your chances for admission into licensing programs may be affected by a prior Article 107 violation record.

In short, false official statements under the UCMJ penalties are extremely serious and need to be treated as such. Contact Conway & Associates to find out what legal rights you have in the fight against Article 107 violations.

Example of Article 107 Case Law

In the precedent-setting case of United States v. Day, 66 M.J. 172 (C.A.A.F. 2008), a military appellate court ruled that statements made to emergency medical personnel on-base fell under Article 107. However, those same statements made to off-base 911 operators did not.

While you might think it’s because the 911 operators were not government officials, it actually has more to do with the relationship of the statements to the individual’s official duties. The accused had misrepresented the position of his child’s body during a medical emergency, providing different accounts to 911 dispatch and on-base responders.

Both statements made were inconsistent with the truth, meaning the service member had knowingly lied about the situation. However, only those statements made to military personnel in an official capacity fell within the scope of Article 107.

The above service member was accused, charged, and convicted of an Article 107 violation. However, false accusations in the military are more commonplace than you might think.

If you think you’ve been falsely accused of a UCMJ Article 107 violation, contact Conway & Associates.

Contact Daniel Conway & Associates Today

UCMJ Article 107 case law is extremely complicated. If you’re worried you may be accused of an Article 107 violation or you’re already facing proceedings, you need to get Conway & Associates in your corner as soon as possible.

Daniel Conway has been battling 107 violations for the better part of a decade. With high-profile media coverage, fast responses 24/7, and years of court martial experience, there isn’t a better law firm out there to represent your interests.

Schedule your free initial consultation with Conway & Associates today. Your case requires the best legal defense. Daniel Conway & Associates is the best legal defense available. Call us now!