Military Lawyers

No. Under military law, prosecutors cannot seek reconsideration of a court-martial panel’s acquittal. An acquittal on the merits is final, and neither the trial counsel nor the convening authority can have a panel reconsider it, retry the accused for the same offense, or appeal the not-guilty finding to a higher court. This protection comes from both the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment and Article 44 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Article 44 codifies double jeopardy for the military

Article 44 of the UCMJ, codified at 10 U.S.C. 844, provides that no person may, without his consent, be tried a second time for the same offense. This is the military counterpart to the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy, and it applies to courts-martial just as the Fifth Amendment applies in civilian courts. The core of the protection is that once an accused has been acquitted, the government gets no second chance at the same charge.

One distinctive feature of the military rule concerns when jeopardy attaches. In a court-martial, jeopardy attaches when evidence is introduced on the merits, rather than at the empaneling and swearing of a jury as in civilian practice. Once jeopardy has attached and the proceeding ends in an acquittal, the finality protection is in full force.

An acquittal is final and not subject to reconsideration

A finding of not guilty on the merits ends the matter as to that offense. The government may not ask the panel to reconsider, may not retry the accused for the same offense or for a lesser-included offense arising from the same conduct, and may not appeal the acquittal. This is true even if the government believes the panel made a mistake, misunderstood the law, or reached a verdict against the weight of the evidence. The very purpose of the double jeopardy guarantee is to prevent the government from repeatedly pursuing an accused after a factfinder has decided in his favor, and that purpose would be defeated if prosecutors could move for reconsideration of an acquittal.

The rule that panels may reconsider their findings before they are formally announced and the court is closed on the matter does not change this. Any internal reconsideration of findings occurs within the deliberation process and operates within tight limits, and the military rules permit reconsideration in the direction of the accused more freely than against him. Once an acquittal is announced, …

Article 93 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, codified at 10 U.S.C. 893, makes it an offense for any person subject to the Code to be guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders. The statutory phrase “subject to his orders” is the key to the question. Because of that phrase, Article 93 reaches relationships in which the accused holds authority over the victim. It does not reach a true peer relationship in which neither member is subject to the other’s orders.

The text fixes the relationship requirement

The element that distinguishes Article 93 from other misconduct articles is that the victim must be subject to the orders of the accused. The Manual for Courts-Martial lists two essential elements: first, that a certain person was subject to the orders of the accused; and second, that the accused was cruel toward, oppressed, or maltreated that person. If the first element is missing, there is no Article 93 offense, no matter how abusive the conduct.

This requirement reflects the article’s purpose. Article 93 targets the abuse of military authority. The wrong it punishes is the exploitation of a power relationship, where a service member who can give lawful orders to another instead subjects that person to cruelty or degradation. The relationship of command or control is not incidental to the offense; it is the offense’s defining feature.

“Subject to his orders” is broader than the formal chain of command

It would be a mistake to read “subject to his orders” as limited to a person’s direct rating chain or a single grade of seniority. The phrase is interpreted functionally. A person is subject to the orders of the accused not only when the accused is the victim’s immediate superior, but also when the accused has authority over the victim by virtue of position, assignment, duty, or custom of the service, even if there is no direct supervisory line between them. A senior member who in fact exercises authority over a junior member can fall within the article even without a formal supervisory title.

This functional reading matters because it means Article 93 can apply to some relationships that are not strictly within a person’s own unit or rating chain, so long as the authority to give orders genuinely exists. The test is whether the victim was actually subject to the accused’s orders, not merely …

For many enlisted service members facing involuntary separation, the strongest procedural argument is not about the underlying conduct at all. It is about process. Department of Defense policy requires that, before certain separations move forward, the member receive formal counseling about the deficiencies at issue and a real opportunity to correct them. When a command skips or shortchanges that step, the lack of formal counseling can become a meaningful basis to challenge the separation. Whether it succeeds depends on the basis for separation and on what the governing rules actually require.

The counseling requirement under DoD policy

The Department of Defense Instruction governing enlisted administrative separations sets a clear procedural expectation for separations grounded in correctable deficiencies. Separation processing may not be initiated until the enlisted service member has been formally counseled concerning the deficiencies and has been afforded an opportunity to overcome those deficiencies, as reflected in appropriate counseling or personnel records. Closely related is the rehabilitation expectation: a member generally should not be separated for certain reasons unless appropriate efforts at rehabilitation have been made under the standards the instruction prescribes.

This requirement reflects a basic fairness principle. For separations premised on the idea that a member is failing to meet a standard, such as unsatisfactory performance or a pattern of minor misconduct, the system assumes the member was told clearly what was wrong and given a fair chance to fix it. Counseling and rehabilitation are the mechanisms that make that assumption real. The counseling must put the member on notice of the specific deficiency and the consequence of failing to correct it.

When the counseling argument is strongest

The challenge has the most force when the basis for separation is exactly the kind of correctable problem the counseling rule is designed to address. Separations for unsatisfactory performance, or for a pattern of minor disciplinary infractions, depend on the premise that the member knew of the deficiency and failed to improve. If the record contains no formal counseling, or only vague or undated entries that never identified the deficiency or warned of separation, the factual premise of the separation is undermined. A separation board or reviewing authority can treat that gap as a failure to satisfy a precondition for processing.

The argument is also strong where service regulations implementing the DoD instruction impose specific counseling content, timing, or rehabilitation steps, and the command did not follow them. Each …

Yes. A service member can still receive an honorable discharge after being administratively reprimanded for inappropriate messages. A reprimand is an administrative corrective tool, not a conviction and not an automatic bar to an honorable characterization of service. Whether the eventual discharge is honorable depends on the overall record, the severity of the misconduct, and the separate decisions about characterization that follow their own standards. This article explains how reprimands relate to discharge characterization and why an honorable discharge remains possible.

A Reprimand Is Not a Conviction

An administrative reprimand, such as a general officer memorandum of reprimand in the Army or its equivalents in the other services, is a written censure documenting that a service member fell short of expected standards. It is an administrative action. It is not a punishment imposed under the UCMJ in the way a court-martial sentence is, and it is not the same as nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, 10 U.S.C. § 815, although a reprimand can also be imposed as part of nonjudicial punishment.

Because a reprimand is administrative, it does not by itself determine how a service member will eventually be discharged. It is one document that may be placed in the service record, where it can influence later decisions, but it does not dictate them. A reprimand for sending inappropriate messages, standing alone, does not require any particular characterization of service at separation.

How Discharge Characterization Is Decided

When a service member separates, the discharge is assigned a characterization of service. The principal characterizations for administrative separations are honorable, general under honorable conditions, and under other than honorable conditions. Each rests on a holistic evaluation of the member’s service.

An honorable discharge is warranted when the quality of the member’s service generally meets the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate. A general discharge under honorable conditions is appropriate when service is honest and faithful but marred by significant negative aspects of conduct or performance. An under other than honorable conditions discharge reflects a significant departure from the conduct expected of a service member.

The key point is that characterization looks at the entire period of service, not at a single incident in isolation. A long record of strong performance can support an honorable characterization even when there is a blemish such as a reprimand. The reprimand is …

Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, codified at 10 U.S.C. 892, punishes three distinct kinds of misconduct: violating or failing to obey a lawful general order or regulation, failing to obey another lawful order, and dereliction of duty. A recurring problem in real prosecutions is the “standing order,” meaning a continuing instruction that a unit treats as binding but that may never have been reduced to a signed, published document. How a court-martial handles such an order depends entirely on which of the three Article 92 theories the government chooses to charge, because each theory carries different requirements for proof of the order’s existence and for proof that the accused knew about it.

Why the documentation question matters

The phrase “standing order” is not a separate legal category under the UCMJ. It is shorthand for an order intended to remain in effect over time rather than to govern a single act. The legal treatment turns on whether that continuing instruction qualifies as a “general order or regulation” or instead as an “other lawful order.” That classification, not the label a unit uses, controls how much documentation the government must produce and whether knowledge must be proven.

Standing orders charged as general orders or regulations

A general order or regulation is one issued by an authority with general court-martial convening power, or by a senior commander or service secretary, that applies generally to the force or a command rather than to one named individual. The first theory under Article 92 reaches violations of such orders. Its appeal to prosecutors is that knowledge is presumed: the government does not have to prove the accused actually knew the order’s contents, only that the order was lawfully in effect and applied to the accused.

That presumption assumes a published, properly issued instrument. When a so-called standing order exists only as an unwritten command practice, oral guidance at formation, or an informal expectation, it generally does not satisfy the formal characteristics of a general order or regulation. A court-martial examining the charge will look for indicia that the instruction was issued at the required level of command and was meant to operate with the force of a regulation. If those indicia are absent, charging the conduct as a general-order violation is vulnerable, because the prosecution cannot rely on the knowledge presumption for an instrument that was never formalized as a general order.…

Testimony at a court-martial, as in civilian trials, normally proceeds through question and answer. Counsel asks a question, the witness answers, and opposing counsel can object to questions and move to strike improper answers. Narrative testimony, by contrast, means the witness speaks at length in his own words without being guided question by question. For an accused service member, the question of whether he may testify in narrative form does not have a single yes-or-no answer. It depends on why the narrative format is being used and on the discretion of the military judge.

The default is question and answer for good reasons

The question-and-answer format is not an empty formality. It allows the military judge to control the proceedings, keeps the witness focused on relevant and admissible matters, and gives the opposing party a chance to object before inadmissible or improper testimony reaches the panel. The Military Rules of Evidence give the military judge broad authority to control the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence so that the testimony is effective for ascertaining the truth, avoids wasting time, and protects witnesses. A free-flowing narrative bypasses much of that control, which is why courts generally prefer the structured format.

The military judge has discretion to permit narrative testimony

Within that framework, a military judge has discretion to allow some narrative testimony when it serves the search for truth and does not invite inadmissible material. Witnesses are sometimes permitted to describe events in their own words rather than through a rigid series of questions, particularly where a continuous account is clearer or more natural. An accused who testifies is treated as a witness for these purposes and is subject to the same rules on the mode of examination. So as a matter of trial management, a judge can permit an accused to give portions of his testimony in narrative form. There is no rule that forbids it outright, and there is no rule that guarantees it as a matter of right. It is committed to the judge’s control of the courtroom.

The narrative form has a special significance when a client intends to testify falsely

The phrase “narrative testimony” carries a particular meaning in the law of defense ethics, and that meaning is the reason the topic arises so often in the context of an accused’s own testimony. The leading authority is the Supreme Court’s decision in Nix …

A court-martial conviction is meant to be final once the appellate process runs its course. But finality assumes the trial was honest. When evidence later emerges that a participant in the proceeding, a witness, counsel, an investigator, or an official, corrupted the process through fraud, the military justice system provides a route to disturb the findings. The principal vehicle is the petition for a new trial. It is narrow, time-bound, and demanding, but it exists precisely for the case where the integrity of the trial itself is in doubt.

The statutory basis: Article 73

The petition for a new trial is created by Article 73 of the UCMJ, codified at 10 U.S.C. 873. The statute permits the accused to petition the Judge Advocate General for a new trial on two grounds: newly discovered evidence or fraud on the court. Procedural fraud by trial participants falls under the second ground, and may also overlap with the first when the fraud comes to light through new evidence.

The statute sets a deadline. As amended by the Military Justice Act of 2016, effective January 1, 2019, a petition may be filed within three years after the date of the entry of judgment under Article 60c. This replaced the older rule, which measured the two-year period from the convening authority’s approval of the sentence. Cases governed by the prior law follow the earlier deadline, so identifying which regime applies to a given conviction is an essential first step.

Where the petition goes

The Judge Advocate General receives the petition, but the path depends on the case’s posture. Under Article 73, if the case is pending before a Court of Criminal Appeals or before the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the Judge Advocate General refers the petition to that court for action. Otherwise, the Judge Advocate General acts on the petition. The same rule that channels the petition also supplies the standards for granting it.

The standard for fraud on the court

The Rules for Courts-Martial implement Article 73 and set the criteria. Under RCM 1210, a new trial may be granted on the basis of fraud on the court only when the fraud had a substantial contributing effect on a finding of guilty or the sentence. This is the crucial limitation. It is not enough to show that someone behaved dishonestly somewhere in the process. The petitioner must connect the fraud to …

False statements about military service occupy a legally sensitive space because two principles collide. One is the longstanding rule that lying, especially to obtain something of value or to mislead the government, can be punished. The other is the First Amendment principle that even false statements are not automatically stripped of constitutional protection. The line between a punishable false service claim and protected personal speech turns on a small set of factors: whether the speaker sought a tangible benefit, whether the statement was official or made to defraud, and whether a statute or regulation has been drawn narrowly enough to avoid criminalizing mere lying for its own sake.

The constitutional baseline: Alvarez

The starting point is United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012), in which the Supreme Court struck down the original Stolen Valor Act of 2005. That law made it a crime to falsely claim receipt of military decorations or medals, regardless of motive, audience, or harm. A majority of the Court held the statute unconstitutional under the First Amendment, reasoning that falsity alone does not remove speech from constitutional protection and that the law was too broad because it reached a false statement made at any time, in any place, to any person, without regard to whether the lie was tied to any gain or concrete harm.

Alvarez did not hold that all lies about military service are protected. The Court’s concern was breadth: a statute that punishes pure speech, untethered from fraud or tangible injury, sweeps too widely. The decision left ample room for narrower laws targeting lies that cause real harm or that are made to obtain something of value.

Congress’s narrowed response: the 2013 statute

Congress responded by enacting a revised statute in 2013, codified within 18 U.S.C. 704, which addresses the constitutional defect identified in Alvarez. Rather than punishing the lie itself, the revised law criminalizes fraudulently holding oneself out as having received certain military honors with the intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit. The added element of fraudulent intent to gain something tangible is what distinguishes the constitutional version from the one the Court rejected. This is the central distinction in the entire area: a false service claim becomes punishable when it is deployed to defraud or to secure a benefit, while a bare boast or exaggeration, however distasteful, generally remains protected personal speech.

How the distinction plays out

…

Attempt offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice are governed by Article 80, codified at 10 U.S.C. 880. The statute punishes a person who, acting with specific intent to commit an offense, does an overt act that amounts to more than mere preparation, even if the offense is never completed. Because specific intent sits at the center of the crime, defendants in attempt cases sometimes argue that they were only joking, role-playing, or indulging a fantasy, and so never actually intended to carry the act through. Whether that argument succeeds is not a matter of a named, freestanding “joking or fantasy defense.” It is a question of whether the government can prove the intent element beyond a reasonable doubt.

The two essential elements of a military attempt

Article 80 requires the government to prove two things in addition to the elements of the underlying offense the accused is alleged to have attempted. First, the accused must have had the specific intent to commit that offense. General intent or recklessness is not enough. Second, the accused must have committed an overt act that was a direct movement toward the commission of the crime and amounted to more than mere preparation.

The line between preparation and a punishable overt act has long been the subject of military appellate attention. In United States v. Schoof, 37 M.J. 96, the Court of Military Appeals (the predecessor of today’s Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces) described preparation as devising or arranging the means or measures necessary to commit the offense, while an attempt requires a direct movement toward commission after the preparations are made. Both elements work together: a person can take a substantial step yet still escape liability if specific intent is absent, and a person can intend an offense yet escape attempt liability if no act beyond preparation occurs.

Why “joking” or “fantasy” is really an attack on intent

When an accused says the conduct was a joke or a fantasy, the legal substance of the claim is that he never formed the specific intent the statute requires. If the words and conduct were genuinely playful, hypothetical, or fantasy role-play with no actual purpose to bring about the criminal result, then the intent element is not satisfied and an attempt conviction cannot stand. In that sense, the claim is recognized, not as a special affirmative defense the accused must prove, but …

Cyber-related misconduct raises a recurring question under military attempt law: at what point does activity on a computer or network become a criminal attempt rather than mere preparation? A specific version of the question is whether something like a login attempt is enough to support a conviction for an attempt under Article 80 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The answer depends entirely on the facts, because Article 80 distinguishes between preparation, which is not punishable as an attempt, and a substantial step toward the offense, which is. A login attempt can fall on either side of that line.

The Article 80 Framework Applied to Cyber Conduct

Article 80, codified at 10 U.S.C. 880, defines an attempt as an act done with specific intent to commit an offense, amounting to more than mere preparation, and tending to effect the commission of that offense even if it fails. To convict, the government must prove three things. There must be a specific intent to commit a particular underlying offense. There must be an overt act, a concrete act at an identifiable time and place. And that act must amount to more than mere preparation, meaning it must be a substantial step that strongly corroborates the criminal intent and represents a direct movement toward commission of the crime.

These principles apply to cyber conduct just as they apply to physical conduct. There is nothing about a keyboard, a credential, or a network that changes the underlying test. The challenge is mapping the familiar preparation-versus-substantial-step analysis onto digital actions.

Why a Login Attempt Is Not Automatically an Attempt Offense

Standing alone, a single login attempt is ambiguous. People type credentials for countless innocent or merely careless reasons, and the act of entering a username and password does not, by itself, reveal a settled criminal purpose. For that reason, an isolated login attempt, without more, is often best characterized as preparation rather than a punishable attempt. It may show interest or curiosity, but Article 80 requires both a proven specific intent to commit a defined offense and conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward it.

The government also has to identify what underlying offense was being attempted. An attempt charge is always an attempt to commit something specific. If the prosecution cannot tie the login activity to a clear intended offense, such as unauthorized access to a protected system, theft of information, or damage …