Yes, service members can and often do gather character letters when facing an Article 120 charge, but how those letters can be used depends heavily on the stage of the case and the limits the Military Rules of Evidence place on character evidence in sexual-assault prosecutions. Character letters are most clearly valuable in sentencing and in administrative or pretrial settings. On the question of guilt or innocence, the rules sharply restrict one common form of character evidence in Article 120 cases, and counsel must understand that restriction before relying on letters to prove the accused did not commit the offense. So the honest answer is that character letters remain useful, but their role on the merits of an Article 120 charge is more constrained than many service members expect.
The general value of character letters
Character letters from supervisors, peers, subordinates, and others who know the accused can speak to traits such as honesty, reliability, leadership, and the accused’s contributions to the unit and the mission. These letters can matter at several points. They can support a defense submission to the convening authority urging a favorable disposition before referral. They can be presented if the case reaches the sentencing phase of a court-martial after findings. And they are routinely used in related administrative proceedings, such as separation boards, where the rules of evidence are more relaxed. In all of these settings, a strong body of character evidence can influence outcomes, which is why assembling credible letters is a standard part of preparing a defense.
The key restriction on the merits: general military character
The complication arises when the defense wants to use character evidence to argue that the accused is not the kind of person who would commit the charged sexual offense. Military Rule of Evidence 404(a) governs the use of a person’s character to suggest action in conformity with that character. Through an amendment that took effect in 2015, the rule was changed so that evidence of a service member’s general military character is not admissible to show the probability of innocence for an enumerated list of offenses that includes sexual-assault offenses under Article 120. The enumerated list also covers certain other offenses, such as larceny, forgery, arson, extortion, burglary, and frauds against the United States. The practical effect is that, for an Article 120 charge, the accused generally cannot put on a case at the findings stage built around being a good service member as proof that the offense did not occur.
This change matters because, before the amendment, good military character had long been recognized as relevant to the question of guilt, and it was a meaningful defense tool in sexual-assault cases that often turn on the credibility of a single complaining witness. The amendment narrowed that avenue, and its scope has been the subject of legal debate, including arguments about a service member’s ability to present a complete defense. Counsel should confirm the current state of the rule and the case law interpreting it, because the precise contours of what general military character evidence may and may not be offered for can be contested and can evolve.
What character evidence may still be offered on the merits
The restriction is not a complete bar on all character evidence at trial. Military Rule of Evidence 404(a) continues to allow an accused to offer evidence of a pertinent character trait, and the prosecution may then rebut it. The critical distinction is between a pertinent specific trait and the broad category of general military character that the amendment singled out. A trait that is genuinely pertinent to a fact at issue in the case may still be admissible even when general good-soldier evidence is not. Because this distinction is technical and fact-specific, the decision about what character evidence to offer on the merits, and in what form, is a matter for defense counsel to evaluate against the current rule and the particular charges. Letters that would be inadmissible as general military character on findings may still be entirely appropriate for sentencing or for administrative use.
Sentencing and administrative settings
Where character letters retain their traditional force is after findings, in sentencing, and outside the court-martial in administrative proceedings. In the sentencing phase, the accused may present matters in extenuation and mitigation, and character evidence about the accused’s service, rehabilitative potential, and contributions is a normal and important part of that presentation. In administrative separation boards and similar proceedings, the evidentiary rules are looser, and character letters can carry substantial weight in arguing for retention or for a more favorable characterization of service. Service members facing an Article 120 allegation are therefore well advised to gather strong, specific, and credible letters early, even if those letters cannot all be used in the same way at the findings stage.
Practical guidance for obtaining effective letters
To be useful, character letters should be specific rather than generic. A letter that recounts concrete observations of the service member’s conduct, judgment, and reliability is far more persuasive than a form recommendation. The author should explain how he or she knows the accused, for how long, and in what capacity, and should describe particular incidents that illustrate the trait being vouched for. Counsel should coordinate the letters so that they are directed at the setting where they can lawfully be used, whether that is a pretrial submission, sentencing, or an administrative board, and should avoid building a findings-stage defense around general military character that the rule excludes in Article 120 cases.
Bottom line
Service members can obtain character letters for an Article 120 defense, and they should. Those letters are clearly valuable for pretrial advocacy, sentencing, and administrative proceedings. Their use on the question of guilt is limited, however, because the Military Rules of Evidence, through the 2015 amendment to Rule 404(a), exclude general military character offered to show the probability of innocence for sexual-assault offenses among others. Pertinent specific character traits may still be admissible on the merits, but the broad good-soldier defense is restricted in Article 120 cases. Because this area is technical and contested, counsel should confirm the current rule and case law and direct each letter to the setting where it will count.
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.