Article 82 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes solicitation. It is a short statute with a heavy reach, because it allows the government to punish a service member for words alone, even when the offense the words encouraged never takes place. Codified at 10 U.S.C. 882, the article was reworked when the Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019, broadening the list of offenses that can serve as the object of a solicitation. Understanding what the government must actually prove is the starting point for any defense.
The Two Core Elements
At its foundation, Article 82 requires the prosecution to establish two things beyond a reasonable doubt. First, that the accused solicited or advised a particular person or persons to commit a covered offense. Second, that the accused did so with the specific intent that the offense actually be committed. Both elements must be present. Loose talk, venting, or hypothetical musing does not satisfy the statute unless the trier of fact concludes the accused genuinely wanted the underlying crime carried out.
The first element focuses on conduct and communication. Solicitation can occur through any means that conveys the request, whether spoken, written, or expressed through gestures. The communication does not need to be received or even understood; the act of soliciting is complete when the accused makes the urging. The second element focuses on the mind of the accused. Because solicitation is a specific intent offense, an honest belief that one was joking, or proof that the accused never wanted anyone to act, undercuts the charge.
Which Offenses Can Be Solicited
The current version of Article 82 separates the covered offenses into two tiers, and the tier matters because it changes both the elements and the available punishment.
Subsection (a) reaches the broad category: soliciting or advising another to commit any offense punishable under the UCMJ other than the offenses listed in subsection (b). This means a service member can be charged under Article 82 for urging another to commit, for example, a larceny or an assault. Subsection (b) covers the most serious military offenses: desertion, mutiny, misbehavior before the enemy, and sedition. Soliciting any of these carries the gravest exposure, and the punishment is tied to the seriousness of the offense solicited. Defense counsel should always confirm which subsection the specification rests on, because the elements track the specific offense solicited.
The Effect of Whether the Crime Occurred
A frequent point of confusion is whether the solicited offense must actually happen. It does not. The crime of solicitation is complete the moment the request is made with the required intent, regardless of whether the person solicited agrees, attempts, or refuses outright. This is what makes solicitation an inchoate offense, similar in structure to attempt and conspiracy.
That said, whether the offense was committed changes the picture in two ways. If the solicited offense or an attempt of it was in fact committed as a proximate result of the solicitation, the government may allege that additional circumstance, which can increase the maximum punishment. If the offense did not occur, the maximum punishment is generally capped at a lower level. So while completion is not an element of guilt, it is highly relevant to sentencing and to how the specification is drafted.
Specific Intent Is the Battleground
Because the first element can often be shown through the words themselves, most contested Article 82 cases turn on intent. The government must prove that the accused truly wanted the underlying offense carried out, not merely that the accused spoke recklessly or in anger. Context becomes decisive. The tone of the statement, the relationship between the parties, prior interactions, the seriousness of the language, and any steps taken after the statement all feed into whether a panel will infer genuine intent.
Defense strategies frequently attack this element directly. Evidence that the statement was sarcastic, that it was made in a setting where no one took it seriously, or that the accused immediately disclaimed any real desire for action can create reasonable doubt. The government, for its part, will look for corroborating conduct, repeated urging, or planning that suggests the words were meant in earnest.
Distinguishing Solicitation From Related Offenses
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 plus an overt act, while solicitation requires no agreement at all; the person solicited need not accept. Attempt requires an overt act by the accused that goes beyond mere preparation toward the substantive crime. Solicitation, by contrast, punishes the act of asking or advising itself. When the same words could support multiple theories, the defense should scrutinize whether charging Article 82 alongside related offenses creates an unreasonable multiplication of charges.
Why the Elements Matter for the Defense
Every Article 82 prosecution rises or falls on proof of both the solicitation and the intent behind it. A careful defense begins by identifying exactly which underlying offense the government alleges was solicited, confirming that the words attributed to the accused genuinely constitute a request or advice to commit that offense, and then focusing the contest on the accused’s actual state of mind. Because the government bears the burden of proving specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt, the absence of corroborating conduct or the presence of an innocent explanation for the words can be the difference between conviction and acquittal.
Service members facing an Article 82 charge should understand that the statute punishes speech tied to intent, and that the legal standards leave significant room to challenge whether that intent existed. A thorough review of the precise language used, the circumstances surrounding it, and the evidence of intent is essential in every case.
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.