Yes. Asking, advising, or encouraging another person to gain unauthorized access to classified material can be prosecuted under Article 82 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, even if the access never actually happens. This is a meaningful change from how many people remember the article. The version of Article 82 that older references describe was narrow, reaching only a handful of named offenses. The current version, in force since the start of 2019, is far broader and squarely covers soliciting another to commit the kind of computer-access offense that unauthorized access to classified material represents.
How Article 82 changed
For decades, Article 82 punished soliciting or advising another only to commit specific offenses: desertion, mutiny, misbehavior before the enemy, or sedition. Under that older framework, solicitation to commit most other crimes was not directly covered by Article 82 and had to be charged through other theories.
The Military Justice Act of 2016, which took effect on January 1, 2019, restructured the article. Codified at 10 U.S.C. 882, the current statute has two parts. Subsection (a) is a general solicitation provision. It punishes any person subject to the code who solicits or advises another to commit any offense under the code, other than the specific offenses set out in subsection (b). Subsection (b) retains the older treatment for the most serious offenses, soliciting another to desert, to commit mutiny or sedition under Article 94, or to misbehave before the enemy under Article 99, and it ties the punishment to whether the solicited offense was attempted or committed.
The practical effect is that general solicitation under subsection (a) now sweeps in solicitation of essentially any UCMJ offense, including computer offenses. That is what makes solicitation of unauthorized access to classified material prosecutable under Article 82 today.
Why unauthorized access to classified material fits
Unauthorized access to a government computer to obtain classified information is itself an offense under Article 123, the article addressing offenses concerning government computers. Because the underlying conduct is a UCMJ offense, soliciting another to carry it out falls within the general solicitation provision of Article 82(a). The person doing the soliciting need not have any ability to access the material personally. The wrong is the act of seeking to induce another to commit the offense.
The elements the government must prove
To convict under the general solicitation provision, the prosecution must establish that the accused solicited or advised a particular person or persons to commit a UCMJ offense, and that the accused did so with the intent that the offense actually be committed. Solicitation is, at its core, an inchoate offense focused on the accused’s purpose and communication.
Two features deserve emphasis. First, the solicitation must be a genuine effort to bring about the offense, not idle talk, hypothetical musing, or a joke. The intent that the solicited person actually carry out the access is essential. Second, the communication can take many forms. A solicitation may be expressed in words, spoken or written, or through other conduct that conveys the request. A message asking a colleague with a clearance to pull up classified files the colleague has no authorization to view, intended to induce that act, is a solicitation regardless of the medium used.
Completion does not require the access to occur
A central point for this question is that under the general solicitation provision in subsection (a), the offense of solicitation is complete when the solicitation is made with the required intent. The person solicited does not have to agree, and the underlying unauthorized access does not have to take place. Whether the solicited offense was ever attempted or committed is what subsection (b) ties to punishment for its enumerated offenses, but the general provision in subsection (a) punishes the solicitation itself as a court-martial may direct. In other words, the asking is the crime.
This distinguishes solicitation from completed access. If the colleague actually accesses the classified material, that person may be liable under Article 123, and the solicitor may face additional exposure as well, but the solicitor’s Article 82 liability does not depend on the colleague following through.
How it relates to nearby offenses
Solicitation under Article 82 should not be confused with conspiracy under Article 81 or attempt under Article 80. Conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons and an overt act. Attempt requires the accused’s own act amounting to more than mere preparation toward committing the offense. Solicitation, by contrast, focuses on the accused’s communication urging someone else to commit the offense, and it is complete at the moment of that communication when the intent is present. Depending on the facts, the government may have more than one of these theories available, but Article 82 stands on its own for the act of soliciting.
Bottom line
Soliciting unauthorized access to classified material is prosecutable under Article 82. The post-2019 general solicitation provision reaches solicitation of any UCMJ offense, including the computer-access offense defined by Article 123. The government must prove that the accused solicited or advised another to commit the offense with the intent that it be carried out. The crime is complete upon the solicitation, so no actual access to the classified material is required for liability to attach.
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.