Wearing or displaying military awards a service member is not entitled to wear can lead to questioning by commanders, supervisors, or investigators. In the military, the unauthorized wearing of decorations or medals can be addressed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, often through the general article, Article 134, and related conduct can also implicate the federal Stolen Valor statute at 18 U.S.C. 704. When a soldier is pulled in for questioning about such conduct, an immediate concern is whether the soldier can insist on having a lawyer present. The answer requires separating two different protections that apply to military questioning: the warning required by Article 31(b) and the right to counsel that attaches in custodial interrogation.
What Article 31(b) provides, and what it does not
Article 31(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice gives military members a protection that civilians do not have. Before a person subject to the code questions a suspect or accused about an offense, the questioner must inform the suspect of the nature of the accusation, advise that the suspect does not have to make any statement, and warn that any statement made may be used as evidence against the suspect. This warning is triggered not only by formal arrest but whenever a person subject to the code, acting in an official capacity, questions someone they suspect of an offense. So in a questioning session about unauthorized awards, the soldier is entitled to be told the suspected offense and to be advised of the right to remain silent.
What Article 31(b) does not do is require the questioner to tell the soldier that they may have a lawyer present. The right to counsel is not part of the Article 31(b) warning itself. This is a frequently misunderstood point. A soldier can always decline to answer and invoke the right to remain silent under Article 31(b), but the statutory warning alone does not guarantee counsel during every questioning.
When the right to counsel attaches
The right to have a lawyer present during questioning comes from the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as applied to the military. The Court of Military Appeals extended the protections of Miranda v. Arizona to military interrogations in United States v. Tempia, and that protection is now reflected in the Military Rules of Evidence governing self-incrimination. Under that framework, the right to counsel attaches to custodial interrogation, meaning questioning that occurs while the suspect is in custody, could reasonably believe they are in custody, or is otherwise deprived of freedom of action in a significant way.
The practical consequence is significant. If the questioning about unauthorized awards is custodial, the soldier can demand a lawyer, and if the soldier requests counsel, any statement made after that request, or evidence derived from it, is inadmissible unless counsel was actually present. The request for counsel in a custodial setting is a hard line: questioning is supposed to stop until a lawyer is provided or the suspect reinitiates.
If the questioning is not custodial, for example an informal interview where the soldier is free to leave, the Fifth Amendment right to counsel may not attach in the same way. Even then, the soldier retains the Article 31(b) right to remain silent and can simply decline to answer and ask to consult an attorney before saying anything further.
What a soldier can practically do
The most reliable course for a soldier facing questioning about unauthorized awards is to invoke the right to remain silent and to clearly request a lawyer. A clear request for counsel during custodial interrogation requires questioning to cease, and even outside custody, refusing to answer and seeking counsel protects the soldier without any downside, because the decision to remain silent cannot itself be used to prove guilt of the offense. The soldier does not have to assess on the spot whether the encounter is technically custodial; the safest position is to assert both rights and to consult a military defense lawyer before making any statement.
Why this matters in unauthorized awards cases
Unauthorized awards questioning often turns on intent and explanation. Investigators may want to know why the soldier wore a decoration, whether the soldier claimed entitlement to it, and whether any benefit was sought. These are exactly the kinds of questions where an unguarded answer can supply the intent element that distinguishes an innocent mistake from a chargeable offense, whether under the general article or the federal stolen valor provisions. Because a statement can be the difference between a minor administrative matter and a criminal charge, the protections around questioning carry real weight.
Conclusion
A soldier cannot rely on the Article 31(b) warning alone to guarantee a lawyer, because that warning does not include advice of the right to counsel. The soldier can, however, demand representation during custodial interrogation, where the Fifth Amendment right to counsel recognized in United States v. Tempia and the Military Rules of Evidence applies, and a request for counsel in that setting requires questioning to stop until a lawyer is present. In every setting the soldier retains the Article 31(b) right to remain silent. The prudent step when questioned about unauthorized awards display is to invoke silence, request counsel, and consult a defense attorney before answering.
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.