Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice covers sexual assault and related offenses, among the most serious matters tried by court-martial. These cases often involve intensely private disclosures, and a service member in crisis sometimes turns to a chaplain. That raises a natural question for both an accused and an alleged victim: if something was said to a chaplain, can the government or the defense force the chaplain to repeat it on the witness stand? The answer turns on the clergy privilege in Military Rule of Evidence 503, which is strong and applies in Article 120 prosecutions just as it does in any other case.
The Clergy Privilege Under MRE 503
Military Rule of Evidence 503 recognizes a privilege for confidential communications made to a chaplain. Under the rule, a person has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication made to a clergyman or to a clergyman’s assistant, when the communication is made either as a formal act of religion or as a matter of conscience.
There is no special exception for Article 120 cases. The rule applies the same way regardless of the underlying charge. The seriousness of a sexual offense allegation does not, by itself, strip away the protection. If the communication qualifies under MRE 503, a chaplain generally cannot be compelled to disclose it, and neither a commander nor a court may require disclosure when the privilege properly applies.
The Three Requirements for the Privilege
Whether a particular conversation is protected depends on three components that a party claiming the privilege must satisfy.
First, the communication must have been made either as a formal act of religion or as a matter of conscience. A confession, a request for spiritual guidance, or a disclosure made in seeking moral or religious counsel fits. Ordinary social conversation does not.
Second, the communication must have been made to a chaplain acting in their capacity as a spiritual advisor, or to a chaplain’s assistant acting in an official capacity. A chaplain wears more than one hat. When a chaplain is functioning as a counselor in a religious or moral sense, the privilege can attach. When the same person is acting in some other role, such as a friend swapping stories or an official gathering information for administrative purposes, the conversation may fall outside the protection.
Third, the communication must have been intended to be confidential. If the speaker did not intend the matter to remain private, or made the statement in front of third parties whose presence defeats confidentiality, the privilege may not apply.
All three must be present. The absence of any one can leave the communication unprotected and, in theory, subject to compelled testimony.
Who Holds the Privilege
A frequent misconception is that the privilege belongs to the chaplain alone, or that the chaplain can waive it freely. Under MRE 503, the privilege belongs to the person who made the communication, the communicant. That person can claim it or, with proper consent, waive it. The rule also allows the clergy member to claim the privilege on the communicant’s behalf, which means a chaplain can and often will assert it to protect the person who confided in them, even when called as a witness.
This matters in Article 120 cases because the protected speaker might be an accused who sought counsel after an allegation, or it might be a complaining witness who disclosed an assault to a chaplain. In either situation, the holder of the privilege controls whether the communication can come out, subject to the court’s determination that the privilege actually applies.
When a Chaplain Might Have to Testify
A chaplain can be required to testify when the privilege does not cover the communication at issue. If a military judge determines, after examining the circumstances, that no privilege exists, because one of the three requirements is missing or because the privilege was waived, then the ordinary obligation to testify applies. A chaplain in that position may be compelled like any other witness.
So the realistic scenarios in which a chaplain testifies in an Article 120 case are these: the conversation was not made as a formal act of religion or matter of conscience; the chaplain was not acting as a spiritual advisor at the time; the statement was not intended to be confidential; or the person holding the privilege consented to disclosure. A chaplain may also testify about matters that are not privileged communications at all, such as observations unrelated to a confidential disclosure. The privilege protects the confidential communication, not every fact a chaplain might happen to know.
The Bottom Line
In Article 120 prosecutions, military chaplains are not freely available as witnesses to repeat what a service member told them in confidence. The clergy privilege in MRE 503 is regarded across the armed forces as a robust protection for confidential, conscience-based communications, and it applies in sexual offense cases without any built in exception. A chaplain can be compelled to testify only when the communication falls outside the privilege or the privilege has been waived by the person who holds it. Because the analysis depends so heavily on the specific facts of how, why, and to whom something was said, anyone whose case involves a disclosure to a chaplain should raise the issue early with qualified military counsel so the privilege can be properly asserted and litigated.
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.