Yes. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the crime of solicitation is complete the moment a service member asks or advises another person to commit an offense with the intent that it be carried out. Whether the person solicited ever acts on the request, or refuses outright, does not control whether a crime occurred. This surprises many service members who assume that “nothing happened” means there is nothing to charge. In military law, the solicitation itself is the prohibited act.
The governing statute: Article 82
Solicitation is codified at Article 82, UCMJ, found at 10 U.S.C. 882. The Military Justice Act of 2016, which took effect on January 1, 2019, rewrote and renumbered much of the code, and Article 82 was among the provisions amended. Service members and even some practitioners still rely on outdated descriptions, so it is worth reading the current text carefully.
As it now stands, Article 82 has two tracks. Subsection (a) is the general rule: any person subject to the code who solicits or advises another to commit any offense under the UCMJ, other than the specific offenses listed in subsection (b), is guilty of solicitation. Subsection (b) singles out the gravest offenses, soliciting desertion under Article 85, mutiny or sedition under Article 94, or misbehavior before the enemy under Article 99, and attaches heavier consequences to them.
Why completion of the underlying offense is not required
The structure of Article 82 makes the answer plain. The statute distinguishes between the situation where the solicited offense is later committed or attempted and the situation where it is not. If the offense is committed or attempted, the solicitor faces the punishment authorized for that underlying offense. If the offense is never committed or attempted, the solicitor is still guilty and is punished as a court-martial may direct. In other words, Congress wrote the law to cover both outcomes. Non-completion changes the available punishment, not the existence of the crime.
This reflects the purpose of solicitation as an inchoate offense. Inchoate crimes, which also include attempt under Article 80 and conspiracy under Article 81, exist to let the justice system intervene before harm occurs. The danger that the law targets is the act of trying to set a crime in motion by enlisting another person, not the eventual success of that effort.
The elements the government must prove
To convict under Article 82, trial counsel must establish two core elements beyond a reasonable doubt. First, that the accused solicited or advised a certain person or persons to commit a particular offense under the code. Second, that the accused did so with the specific intent that the offense actually be committed.
The specific intent requirement is significant. Solicitation is not a negligence or recklessness offense. A careless remark, a hypothetical musing, or words spoken in jest do not satisfy the statute unless the accused genuinely intended that the listener carry out the offense. The government must prove that state of mind, often through the words used, the surrounding circumstances, the relationship between the parties, and any steps taken to facilitate the request.
The solicitation must also be communicated. A plan that stays in the accused’s head, or a note never delivered, is not solicitation because no other person was actually asked or advised. Once the request reaches the intended person, however, the offense is complete regardless of that person’s reaction.
What the listener does afterward
Because the offense turns on the accused’s conduct and intent, the solicited person’s response is largely beside the point for guilt. The listener may refuse, may report the request to the chain of command, may pretend to agree, or may do nothing at all. None of these reactions undoes the solicitation. The listener does not even have to be capable of committing the offense; what matters is that the accused asked and intended the crime to happen.
That said, the listener’s conduct can affect punishment. As noted, if the solicited offense is eventually committed or attempted, the solicitor is exposed to the punishment for that completed or attempted offense, which is frequently more severe than the open-ended sentence a court-martial may impose when nothing came of the request.
How solicitation differs from related offenses
Solicitation is sometimes confused with conspiracy and attempt, but the line matters. Conspiracy under Article 81 requires an agreement between two or more people and, generally, an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. Solicitation requires no agreement at all; the person solicited can flatly refuse, and the solicitor is still guilty. Attempt under Article 80 requires that the accused personally take a substantial step toward committing the offense. Solicitation, by contrast, punishes the accused for trying to get someone else to commit it. A single course of conduct can sometimes implicate more than one of these theories, which is why charging decisions in these cases deserve careful legal analysis.
Practical takeaways
The central point for any service member is that “the crime never happened” is not a defense to solicitation. The request, made with intent, is itself the crime. Defenses in these cases tend to focus elsewhere: whether the words actually amounted to a request to commit a real offense, whether the accused truly intended the offense to occur, whether the statement was communicated to the person alleged, or whether the evidence of intent is sufficient at all. Because Article 82 was revised in the 2019 changes and because punishment depends heavily on which offense was solicited and whether it was later carried out, anyone facing such an allegation should consult qualified military defense counsel rather than assume the matter is minor.
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.