No, Article 120 does not require proof of force for all sexual assault convictions. The statute recognizes multiple theories including incapacity to consent, fraudulent representations, and abuse of position eliminating force requirements. Modern understanding of sexual assault acknowledges that many incidents involve no physical force but rather exploitation of vulnerabilities or circumstances preventing valid consent.
Incapacity-based prosecutions prove victims could not consent due to impairment from alcohol, drugs, or unconsciousness without showing force. Sleep or unconsciousness creates per se inability to consent. Intoxication prosecutions focus on substantial incapacitation affecting decision-making ability. Mental incapacity or age-based inability to consent similarly requires no force evidence.
Constructive force theories recognize certain relationships or circumstances create inherently coercive environments. Abuse of military position, treatment provider relationships, or custodial situations may vitiate consent without physical force. Threats need not involve physical harm but can include career consequences, social ostracism, or other pressures unique to military environments.
Military courts instruct panels on multiple prosecution theories allowing conviction based on proven circumstances. Defense strategies must address all theories, not merely force presence or absence. The evolution reflects contemporary understanding that sexual assault encompasses broader conduct than traditional force-based rape while maintaining requirements for criminal culpability through various consent-defeating circumstances.