Unlawful command influence is sometimes called the mortal enemy of military justice because it threatens both the fairness and the appearance of fairness of a court-martial. Article 37 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits commanders and convening authorities from improperly influencing the actions of a court-martial. A recurring question is whether an administrative reprimand, such as a letter of reprimand or a general officer memorandum of reprimand, can be attacked as unlawful command influence when it is brought up during a trial. The answer depends on what is meant by the challenge. The reprimand itself is an administrative action and is not unlawful command influence simply because it exists, but the way a reprimand is generated or used in the courtroom can raise a genuine command influence issue.
What unlawful command influence is
Article 37 forbids a convening authority or commander from censuring, reprimanding, or admonishing a court-martial, its members, the military judge, or counsel with respect to findings, sentence, or the exercise of their functions. It also more broadly prohibits attempts to coerce or improperly influence the action of a court-martial or the exercise of professional judgment by participants. Unlawful command influence is generally divided into two forms. Actual unlawful command influence is conduct that in fact affected the proceedings. Apparent unlawful command influence exists when an objective, disinterested observer, fully informed of the facts, would harbor a significant doubt about the fairness of the proceeding, even without proof of actual prejudice.
An ordinary administrative reprimand, issued through normal channels for documented conduct, is not by itself an exercise of influence over a court-martial. So a reprimand cannot be challenged as unlawful command influence merely because a commander issued it.
When a reprimand can implicate command influence
The command influence concern arises in particular circumstances connected to the trial. One is when the reprimand reflects a command predisposition that spills into the court-martial. If the same authority who issued a reprimand expressing a fixed conclusion about the member’s guilt later acts as the convening authority, or pressures witnesses or participants, the reprimand can be evidence of a mindset that, combined with other conduct, amounts to unlawful command influence over the prosecution.
A second concern is the use of the reprimand in the courtroom. If the government offers the reprimand as evidence, for example in sentencing or to prove a prior act, the defense can argue that admitting a command’s accusatory document allows command opinion to substitute for proof and to influence the panel improperly. Whether that argument sounds in unlawful command influence or simply in the ordinary rules of evidence depends on the facts, but a document that conveys a commander’s view of guilt to the members can carry a risk of improper influence on top of any evidentiary objection.
A third concern is the chilling effect on participants. If a reprimand, or the threat of one, was used to discourage a witness from testifying for the defense, to pressure counsel, or to influence members, that use is the classic territory of Article 37, and the reprimand becomes part of the proof of command influence.
How the issue is litigated
Unlawful command influence is raised by motion. The defense carries an initial burden to raise the issue with more than mere speculation, by presenting some evidence of facts that, if true, would constitute unlawful command influence and a logical connection to the proceeding. Once the defense meets that threshold, the burden shifts to the government, which must disprove the predicate facts beyond a reasonable doubt, or persuade the court that the facts do not constitute unlawful command influence, or prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the unlawful command influence did not prejudice the proceedings. This burden shifting framework is what makes a well supported command influence claim powerful, because once triggered it places a heavy burden on the government.
When a reprimand is the focus, the litigation centers on whether the document or its issuance reflects or transmits improper command influence into the trial, and whether that influence is actual or merely apparent. Even apparent unlawful command influence can require a remedy, because the appearance of unfairness is itself the harm Article 37 guards against.
Available remedies
If a court finds unlawful command influence connected to a reprimand or its use, the remedies are flexible and depend on the nature and severity of the influence. A military judge may exclude the reprimand or limit its use, give curative instructions, individually question panel members to determine and neutralize any exposure, disqualify a tainted convening authority, or in serious cases dismiss charges. The goal is to restore both the reality and the appearance of a fair proceeding.
The bottom line
An administrative reprimand cannot be challenged as unlawful command influence simply because it was issued, since a reprimand is a routine administrative action rather than influence over a court-martial. But when a reprimand reflects a command predisposition that bleeds into the trial, is used in the courtroom in a way that lets command opinion improperly sway the members, or was deployed to pressure witnesses or participants, it can support a genuine unlawful command influence claim under Article 37. Such a claim is raised by motion, triggers a demanding burden on the government once the defense makes the threshold showing, and can lead to remedies ranging from exclusion of the reprimand to dismissal of charges.
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.