Obstruction of justice is a completed offense under Article 131b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Charging an attempt to commit that offense brings a second statute into play, Article 80, the general attempts article. The threshold question is not whether the accused succeeded in derailing an investigation or proceeding, but whether the accused took a step that crossed from preparation into a substantial step toward obstruction, undertaken with the specific intent to influence, impede, or obstruct the due administration of justice. Understanding where that line falls requires looking at both articles together.
What Article 131b already requires
Article 131b punishes conduct committed in the case of a particular person against whom the accused had reason to believe there were or would be criminal or disciplinary proceedings pending, where the accused acted with intent to influence, impede, or otherwise obstruct the due administration of justice. The elements are that the accused wrongfully did a certain act, that the accused did so in the case of a person against whom the accused believed proceedings were or would be pending, and that the act was done with the intent to obstruct justice.
A feature of Article 131b that matters enormously to the attempt question is that actual obstruction is not an element. The completed offense is satisfied by an endeavor to obstruct. Wrongfully influencing, intimidating, or impeding a witness, or endeavoring to do so, already completes the crime even if the witness is not actually swayed. Because the statute reaches an endeavor, much conduct that might intuitively look like an attempt is already the finished offense under Article 131b itself.
How Article 80 defines an attempt
Article 80 makes it an offense to attempt to commit any offense under the code. It has four elements: an overt act, done with the specific intent to commit a particular offense, that amounts to more than mere preparation, and that apparently tends to effect the commission of the intended offense. Military law measures the third element by the substantial step standard, meaning the overt act must be a substantial step toward commission of the crime, strongly corroborative of the accused’s criminal intent, rather than a remote or equivocal preparatory act.
Where the attempt threshold actually sits
Because Article 131b already criminalizes an endeavor to obstruct, the realistic space for an attempted obstruction charge under Article 80 is narrow. The threshold for charging the attempt is met only when the accused, with the specific intent to obstruct justice, took a substantial step toward an obstructive act but did not even reach the point of an endeavor that Article 131b would itself capture, or where some element of the completed offense was missing yet the accused’s conduct still strongly corroborated an obstructive purpose.
In practical terms, the government must show more than a private wish to interfere. Thinking about pressuring a witness, drafting a misleading statement that is never sent, or assembling the means to tamper with evidence may be preparation. The threshold is crossed when the accused does something that moves directly toward the obstructive act and that, but for an intervening event, would have influenced or impeded the proceeding. The accused must also have had reason to believe that proceedings against a particular person were pending or would be pending, because that belief supplies the intent that Article 131b requires and that the attempt must mirror.
The intent that both articles demand
The specific intent under Article 80 is the intent to commit the named offense, here obstruction. That intent incorporates the obstructive purpose at the heart of Article 131b. A member who acts carelessly, who misunderstands what is being asked, or who has no present purpose to influence or impede a proceeding cannot be charged with attempted obstruction, because the specific intent element is absent. The government typically proves intent through statements, timing, and the nature of the steps taken, since direct evidence of a person’s purpose is rare.
Why charging decisions usually favor the completed offense
Given that Article 131b reaches endeavors, prosecutors frequently charge the completed offense rather than an attempt, because an endeavor that fails is already punishable under Article 131b without resort to Article 80. An attempted obstruction theory is most defensible where the accused’s conduct was interrupted before it matured into even an endeavor, yet the steps taken were unequivocally aimed at obstruction. Charging an attempt where the facts establish a completed endeavor risks redundancy, and a military judge may treat the two as the same offense for findings and sentencing purposes to avoid an unreasonable multiplication of charges.
Defenses at the threshold
The most common challenge is that the conduct never advanced beyond preparation. Equivocal acts consistent with innocent explanations do not satisfy the substantial step requirement. A second defense is the absence of specific intent to obstruct, which defeats both the completed offense and any attempt. Voluntary abandonment may also matter where the accused freely and completely renounced the obstructive purpose before any obstructive act, although that protection does not apply when the accused stopped only because of outside intervention or fear of being caught. Finally, if no proceeding was pending or reasonably anticipated against any particular person, the predicate belief is missing and neither Article 131b nor an Article 80 attempt can stand.
Bottom line
The threshold for charging attempted obstruction of justice under Articles 80 and 131b is a substantial step toward obstructing the due administration of justice, taken with the specific intent to influence, impede, or obstruct, in the case of a person the accused believed faced or would face proceedings. Because Article 131b already punishes an endeavor to obstruct, actual success is never required and the practical room for an attempt charge is small. The line is crossed only when conduct moves past preparation toward an obstructive act, strongly corroborating the accused’s purpose, even though that act was never completed.
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.