Yes, stolen valor is a federal criminal offense under the Stolen Valor Act of 2013, but only when it is committed in a specific way. The 2013 law does not make it a crime simply to lie about military service or decorations. It criminalizes lying about certain military honors when the lie is told with the intent to obtain money, property, or another tangible benefit. That distinction is the entire reason the 2013 statute exists, and understanding it requires understanding why an earlier version of the law was struck down.
Why there are two Stolen Valor Acts
The original Stolen Valor Act of 2005 made it a crime to falsely claim receipt of military decorations or medals, with an enhanced penalty when the claim involved the Medal of Honor. That statute punished the false statement itself, regardless of whether the speaker sought any gain.
In United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012), the Supreme Court held that the 2005 Act violated the First Amendment. Xavier Alvarez had falsely claimed to have received the Medal of Honor. A divided Court concluded that even false statements of this kind enjoy First Amendment protection and that the government cannot criminalize a bare lie about military honors without more. Justice Kennedy’s plurality opinion acknowledged that such lies are contemptible, but held that contempt does not by itself authorize criminal punishment of pure speech.
Congress responded by enacting the Stolen Valor Act of 2013, which amended 18 U.S.C. 704. The drafters narrowed the offense precisely to cure the constitutional defect the Court identified. Rather than punishing the lie itself, the 2013 law punishes the lie when it is paired with fraudulent intent to obtain something of value.
What the 2013 Act actually prohibits
Under the current text of 18 U.S.C. 704, it is a crime to fraudulently hold oneself out, with intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit, as a recipient of certain covered military decorations or medals. The covered awards include the Medal of Honor, a distinguished-service cross, a Navy cross, an Air Force cross, a silver star, a Purple Heart, and a defined set of combat and valor decorations and certain combat badges.
The essential elements are therefore twofold. First, the person must falsely claim to have received one of the covered awards. Second, that false claim must be made with the intent to obtain money, property, or another tangible benefit. The second element is what separates protected speech from a federal crime. A person who falsely brags about a medal at a bar, with no intent to gain anything tangible, has not committed the offense, however distasteful the conduct may be. A person who falsely claims a covered medal on a job application, in a contracting bid, to obtain veterans benefits, or to secure some other concrete advantage has crossed the line into criminal fraud.
Penalties
A conviction under 18 U.S.C. 704 for fraudulent misrepresentation regarding covered decorations is a federal misdemeanor that can result in a fine and imprisonment for up to one year. The statute continues to treat false claims involving the Medal of Honor with particular seriousness within the framework of covered awards. Separate provisions of Section 704 also address the unauthorized wearing, manufacture, or sale of decorations and medals, which are distinct offenses from the false-claim provision.
How this interacts with other fraud laws
Because the 2013 Act is built around fraudulent intent, conduct that violates it will often violate other federal fraud statutes as well. Falsely claiming a decoration to obtain federal benefits can implicate general false statement and fraud provisions. Using the mails or wires to carry out the scheme can implicate mail and wire fraud statutes. Prosecutors sometimes rely on these broader statutes in addition to, or instead of, Section 704, particularly where the financial harm is substantial. The Stolen Valor Act provides a targeted tool, but it is not the only one.
A note on service members
Service members who lie about decorations may face consequences beyond the federal criminal code. Within the military justice system, false official statements can be charged under Article 107 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and conduct that brings discredit on the armed forces can be addressed under Article 134. These military provisions operate independently of the Stolen Valor Act and do not require the same fraudulent-intent showing, though they apply only to persons subject to the UCMJ.
Bottom line
Stolen valor is a criminal offense under the Stolen Valor Act of 2013, but the crime is fraud, not falsehood. The law punishes false claims to covered military honors only when made with intent to obtain money, property, or another tangible benefit. That narrow design is the direct product of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Alvarez, which held that punishing the lie alone violates the First Amendment. Anyone evaluating a potential stolen valor case should focus on whether the tangible-benefit element can be proven, because without it there is no offense under the 2013 statute.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Rules for Courts-Martial, the Military Rules of Evidence, and related military administrative processes work as a matter of public legal education. It does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular case, and it is not a substitute for advice from a qualified military defense attorney who can evaluate the specific facts and command, service, and jurisdictional circumstances involved.
Reading this article, or contacting any website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author. Every court-martial, nonjudicial punishment action, administrative separation, and security-clearance matter turns on its own facts, the charged articles, the convening authority, the service branch, and the evidence, and outcomes vary widely from one case to another.
Military law also changes over time. The Military Justice Act of 2016 (effective January 1, 2019) and subsequent National Defense Authorization Acts renumbered and rewrote many punitive articles, revised the Article 32 preliminary hearing, and altered sentencing, clemency, and appellate procedures. Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Manual for Courts-Martial, and decisions of the service Courts of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may have been amended, superseded, or reinterpreted after this article was written, and article numbers or procedures cited here may have changed.
For these reasons, no reader should act or decline to act based on this content without first consulting a licensed attorney experienced in military justice about their own situation. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or current applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken in reliance on it. If you are facing investigation, charges, or an adverse administrative action, time limits may apply, and you should seek qualified counsel promptly.