Suppose two service members agree to commit an offense and then begin taking steps toward it together. Have they committed an attempt, a conspiracy, both, or neither? Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the answer depends on the nature of the steps taken and on the role of the agreement between them. Attempt is governed by Article 80 (10 U.S.C. 880) and conspiracy by Article 81 (10 U.S.C. 881). These are distinct inchoate offenses, meaning each punishes conduct that stops short of the completed crime, but they measure different things, and the same joint preparatory conduct can satisfy one without satisfying the other.
Attempt under Article 80
An attempt is an act, done with the specific intent to commit a particular offense under the UCMJ, that amounts to more than mere preparation and that tends, even though it fails, to effect the commission of that offense. Three features stand out. There must be a specific intent to commit the underlying offense. There must be an overt act. And that overt act must go beyond mere preparation.
The dividing line between preparation and attempt is the heart of Article 80. Military law applies a substantial step analysis: the act must be a substantial step toward commission of the crime, one that strongly corroborates the actor’s criminal purpose, rather than remote planning or arranging. Whether conduct has crossed from preparation into a substantial step is decided case by case on the specific facts. Buying tools, scouting a location, or making plans may still be preparation; conduct that directly moves toward carrying out the offense and is close in time and design to its commission is more likely an attempt.
Conspiracy under Article 81
Conspiracy has two elements. First, the accused entered into an agreement with one or more persons to commit an offense under the UCMJ. Second, while the agreement existed and while the accused remained a party to it, the accused or at least one co-conspirator performed an overt act for the purpose of bringing about the object of the conspiracy.
The agreement is the core of conspiracy. The overt act requirement is comparatively modest. The overt act need not itself be unlawful, and it need not be a substantial step or bring the offense anywhere near completion. Even a minor act done to advance the agreement can satisfy this element. The act serves only to show that the conspiracy has moved beyond mere words and into action.
The key difference when two people take joint preparatory steps
Here is the practical distinction. For conspiracy, what matters is that there was an agreement to commit the offense and that someone took at least one overt act, however slight, to further it. Joint preparatory steps, even early and minor ones, will ordinarily satisfy conspiracy’s overt act element so long as a genuine agreement exists. The conduct does not have to come close to completing the crime.
For attempt, the agreement is not the point at all. What matters is whether the conduct itself crossed from preparation into a substantial step toward the completed offense. Early joint preparation, the kind that easily supports conspiracy, may be far too preliminary to constitute an attempt. If the two people have only agreed and begun arranging matters, they may be guilty of conspiracy yet not guilty of attempt, because their acts remain mere preparation under Article 80.
The relationship can also run the other way conceptually. A single person acting alone can commit an attempt with no agreement at all, because attempt requires no second party. Conspiracy, by contrast, requires the agreement of at least two minds. So the presence of two people taking joint steps is essential to conspiracy but incidental to attempt.
They are separate offenses, and both can be charged
Because each offense requires proof of an element the other does not, conspiracy to commit a crime and attempt to commit the same crime are treated as separate offenses. Conspiracy requires an agreement that attempt does not; attempt requires a substantial step that conspiracy does not. As a result, the same course of conduct can, on the right facts, support both a conspiracy charge and an attempt charge without the two being redundant in the eyes of military law.
Applying the distinction to the joint-steps scenario
Return to the two service members who agreed and began acting together. To assess conspiracy, ask whether there was a real agreement to commit a UCMJ offense and whether at least one of them took any overt act to advance it. If yes, conspiracy is likely complete even at an early stage. To assess attempt, set the agreement aside and ask whether the acts themselves, by either person, amounted to a substantial step that strongly corroborates the intent to commit the offense and goes beyond mere preparation. If the acts are still preliminary, there may be no attempt even though the conspiracy is complete.
Summary
The difference comes down to what each offense measures. Conspiracy under Article 81 punishes the agreement, backed by any overt act, even a minor one, in furtherance of it. Attempt under Article 80 punishes conduct that has progressed into a substantial step toward the crime, regardless of any agreement. When two people take joint preparatory steps, those steps may readily establish a conspiracy while still being too preliminary to be an attempt. Because the offenses are distinct, a court-martial may sometimes charge both, and anyone facing such charges should consult a military defense attorney to evaluate exactly how the facts map onto each set of elements.
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.