Obstruction of justice is a recognized offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, charged under Article 131b and codified at 10 U.S.C. 931b. The offense reaches efforts to interfere with the administration of military justice, and it does not lose its force simply because the person targeted by the interference is a civilian rather than a service member. Understanding how the offense applies when civilian witnesses are involved requires looking closely at the statutory elements and at the nature of the conduct the law prohibits.
The Core Elements of Article 131b
To establish obstruction of justice, the government must prove several elements. First, the accused must have done a certain act in the case of a person against whom the accused had reason to believe there were or would be criminal or disciplinary proceedings pending. Second, the act must have been done with the intent to influence, impede, or otherwise obstruct the due administration of justice. And under the general framework for punitive offenses, the conduct must have been to the prejudice of good order and discipline or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
A crucial feature of the offense is that actual obstruction is not required. The law focuses on the accused’s intent and the act undertaken, not on whether the effort succeeded. An attempt to influence testimony that ultimately fails can still satisfy the elements, because the wrongful intent and the corresponding act are what the statute targets.
Why Civilian Witnesses Are Covered
Nothing in Article 131b limits the offense to interference directed at service members. The statute is concerned with the due administration of justice, and that interest is implicated whenever someone wrongfully tries to influence, intimidate, impede, or injure a witness in a matter connected to military proceedings. A civilian can be a witness in a court-martial just as a service member can. Civilian victims, civilian bystanders, civilian family members, and civilian professionals frequently provide relevant testimony. When an accused targets such a person to shape or suppress their participation, the conduct falls within the offense.
The recognized examples of obstruction illustrate this breadth. Wrongfully influencing, intimidating, impeding, or injuring a witness is squarely within the prohibited conduct, and the term witness draws no distinction based on military status. Likewise, attempting to coerce a person to provide false testimony or to withhold truthful information is conduct the offense is designed to reach, regardless of whether the targeted witness wears a uniform.
The Conduct the Law Targets
Obstruction involving civilian witnesses can take many forms. It may involve threats designed to discourage cooperation, offers intended to induce a witness to change or withhold testimony, or efforts to persuade a witness to disappear or become unavailable. It may also involve attempts to feed a witness a false account. The unifying thread is the wrongful purpose of bending the witness’s participation away from a truthful and complete contribution to the proceeding.
Because the offense centers on intent, the government’s proof often turns on what the accused communicated and the circumstances surrounding it. A casual conversation with a witness is not obstruction. The line is crossed when the accused acts with the purpose of influencing, impeding, or obstructing the administration of justice in a matter the accused believed was pending or would be pending.
The Connection to Pending Proceedings
The element requiring that the accused had reason to believe there were or would be criminal or disciplinary proceedings is significant when civilian witnesses are involved. The accused need not have certainty that charges exist. It is enough that the accused had reason to believe proceedings were pending or forthcoming against a person. This forward looking aspect means that efforts to silence a civilian witness early, before charges are formally preferred, can still constitute obstruction if the accused anticipated the proceedings.
Distinguishing Obstruction From Legitimate Investigation
A defense team is entitled to investigate, and that work often means speaking with witnesses, including civilians. The line between permissible investigation and unlawful obstruction lies in purpose and method. Asking a civilian witness what he or she observed, taking a truthful statement, or testing the consistency of an account are ordinary and proper parts of preparing a case. None of these activities carries the wrongful intent the offense requires.
Obstruction begins where the purpose shifts from gathering truthful information to bending the witness’s participation. Pressuring a witness to forget what was seen, suggesting that the witness leave the area to avoid testifying, hinting at consequences for cooperating, or coaching a witness toward a false account all reflect the intent to influence, impede, or obstruct the administration of justice. Because the statute targets that intent rather than the success of the effort, even a clumsy or unsuccessful attempt can satisfy the elements. The civilian status of the witness does not change this analysis, since the offense protects the integrity of the proceeding rather than the rank of any particular participant.
Practical Implications for Service Members
For a service member under investigation, the lesson is direct. Contacting a civilian witness to discourage cooperation, to shape a false story, or to pressure the witness in any way carries serious risk, even when the underlying case may seem weak and even if the effort does not work. Article 131b can add an independent charge that exists separately from the original allegation, and because actual obstruction is not required, the exposure attaches the moment the wrongful act is taken with the requisite intent.
Service members who believe a civilian witness has relevant information should work through counsel and proper investigative channels rather than approaching witnesses directly. Legitimate efforts to gather evidence and prepare a defense are protected, but conduct aimed at improperly influencing what a witness says or whether the witness participates can transform a defense effort into a new and serious offense. Because the offense applies fully to civilian witnesses, no service member should assume that the civilian status of a witness places interference outside the reach of military law.
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.