Article 82 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), codified at 10 U.S.C. section 882, makes it an offense to solicit or advise another to commit an offense under the Code. A common misconception is that solicitation must be spoken, perhaps imagining a face-to-face exchange in which one service member urges another to commit a crime. That is not the law. Solicitation under Article 82 is not limited to verbal communication. It can be accomplished in writing, electronically, and even through conduct, and modern cases frequently involve text messages and social media. What matters is the act of urging or advising the offense, not the medium through which it travels.
What Article 82 prohibits
Article 82 reaches any person subject to the UCMJ who solicits or advises another person to commit an offense under the Code. The statute provides for punishment as a court-martial may direct and includes enhanced treatment for soliciting certain especially serious offenses, such as desertion, mutiny, sedition, or misbehavior before the enemy, particularly where the solicited offense is attempted or actually committed. Following the modernization of the UCMJ, Article 82 broadly covers solicitation of offenses under the Code, rather than being confined to a short list of crimes.
The elements the government must prove are that the accused solicited or advised a particular person or persons to commit a particular offense under the UCMJ, and that the accused did so with the intent that the offense be committed. The communication must be directed at a specific person and must amount to genuine urging or advising, not vague or generalized talk.
The conduct element does not specify a medium
Nothing in the elements ties solicitation to spoken words. The actus reus of solicitation is the act of urging, advising, commanding, or otherwise seriously attempting to persuade another to commit the offense. That act can be carried out by any means capable of communicating the message. Solicitation may be accomplished by words, whether spoken or written, and it may also be accomplished by other means, including conduct or nonverbal signals that clearly convey the urging. The law focuses on whether the accused communicated the solicitation with the requisite intent, not on the channel used.
This is why a written note, a letter, an email, a text message, a direct message on a social media platform, or a recorded message can all serve as the vehicle for solicitation. Each is a method of communicating the urging to a specific person. The format is simply the carrier; the offense lies in the message and the intent behind it.
Digital and written formats in practice
Because so much military communication now happens through phones and online platforms, the typical Article 82 case today often involves digital evidence. A service member who sends a text urging another to go absent without leave, who messages a peer asking that peer to fabricate a record, or who uses a social media exchange to push another member toward a UCMJ offense has committed solicitation as fully as one who spoke the same words aloud. The written and digital nature of the communication does not weaken the charge. If anything, it provides a durable record of the solicitation that can be introduced as evidence.
Written and digital formats can also make certain elements easier to prove. The content of a message can show the specific person addressed, the specific offense urged, and language reflecting the intent that the offense be committed. These are exactly the facts the government must establish, and a preserved electronic message can supply them directly.
Solicitation is complete upon communication
An important feature of Article 82 reinforces that the medium does not matter. Solicitation is generally treated as an instantaneous offense that is complete when the solicitation is communicated. The person solicited need not agree, need not attempt the offense, and need not commit it. The crime lies in the act of soliciting with the required intent. Because the offense turns on the communication itself, the channel used to communicate, spoken, written, or digital, is immaterial to whether the offense occurred. A text message urging a crime completes the offense just as a spoken request would, regardless of whether the recipient ever acts on it.
This principle does carry one practical implication worth noting. Because the offense is complete upon communication, questions can arise about whether a written or electronic solicitation was actually communicated to its intended recipient. A message that is composed but never sent, for instance, raises a different question than one that is transmitted. But once a written or digital solicitation is communicated to the intended person, the format is irrelevant to guilt.
Distinguishing solicitation from protected or innocent communication
Because solicitation can take any form, the line between a chargeable solicitation and ordinary communication is drawn by the elements rather than by the medium. The communication must be a genuine urging or advising of a specific offense, directed at a specific person, with the intent that the offense be committed. Idle talk, hypothetical musing, or vague encouragement that does not seriously urge a particular crime does not meet the standard. This is true whether the words are spoken in person or typed into a messaging app. The medium neither creates nor excuses liability; the content and intent do.
Bottom line
Solicitation under Article 82 is not limited to verbal communication. The offense lies in urging or advising a specific person to commit a UCMJ offense with the intent that it be committed, and that urging can be conveyed by spoken words, written documents, electronic and digital messages, or even conduct that clearly communicates the solicitation. Modern cases routinely rest on texts and social media messages. Because the offense is complete upon communication and does not require the solicited person to act, the format of the solicitation does not determine guilt. What determines guilt is whether the accused, by whatever means, genuinely urged a specific offense with the intent that it be carried out.
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.