The punishment for soliciting a serious, felony-level offense under the UCMJ is not set by a fixed number that applies to every case. Instead, the sentence is tied to the offense the accused tried to bring about. As a general rule, solicitation under Article 82 is punished by reference to the offense solicited, and the maximum authorized punishment for the solicitation cannot exceed the maximum authorized for that underlying offense. That principle is the single most important thing to understand, because it means there is no one-size-fits-all range. The exposure depends entirely on what crime the accused solicited.
Because the question of sentencing causes a great deal of anxiety, it is worth walking through how the framework actually works, why the underlying offense controls, and what factors shape the sentence a panel or judge ultimately imposes.
The Punishment Tracks the Underlying Offense
Article 82 of the UCMJ punishes a service member who solicits or advises another to commit an offense, with the intent that the offense be committed. The Manual for Courts-Martial sets the maximum punishment for solicitation by reference to the offense that was solicited. In practical terms, the more serious the offense the accused tried to instigate, the greater the potential punishment for the solicitation.
For the gravest offenses historically singled out in the statute, such as desertion, mutiny, misbehavior before the enemy, and sedition, the law provides that if the solicited offense is attempted or committed, the soliciting member faces the punishment provided for the commission of that offense. The general principle running through the framework is that the punishment for solicitation does not exceed the maximum authorized for the underlying offense. This is why no universal numeric range can be quoted. A solicitation tied to a low-level offense carries modest exposure, while a solicitation tied to a felony-level offense carries exposure approaching that of the serious crime itself.
Why There Is No Single Felony Range
The phrase felony-level is a useful shorthand for offenses that, in civilian terms, would be serious crimes, but the military does not use a civilian felony grading system to set solicitation punishments. Instead, each punitive article carries its own maximum, and Article 82 borrows from that maximum. A service member asking what range applies to solicitation of a felony-level offense is really asking two questions at once: which specific offense was solicited, and what is the maximum punishment authorized for that offense.
Until those questions are answered for the particular case, any number would be a guess. The correct approach is to identify the exact offense charged as the object of the solicitation, locate the maximum punishment for that offense in the Manual for Courts-Martial, and then apply the Article 82 rule that the solicitation cannot exceed that maximum.
Components of a Court-Martial Sentence
When people think of sentencing ranges, they often picture only confinement. A court-martial sentence for a serious offense can include several components, and the same is true for a solicitation conviction tied to a felony-level offense. Depending on the offense and the forum, the authorized punishment may include confinement, forfeiture of pay and allowances, reduction in grade, and a punitive separation such as a bad-conduct discharge or, for the most serious offenses tried by general court-martial, a dishonorable discharge. The precise components available depend on the underlying offense and on the type of court-martial that hears the case.
It is also worth noting that the type of court-martial limits the maximum punishment. A summary or special court-martial has lower ceilings than a general court-martial, so even where an underlying offense authorizes severe punishment, the forum can constrain what is actually available.
Factors That Influence the Actual Sentence
The maximum authorized punishment is a ceiling, not a prediction. The sentence actually imposed depends on many case-specific factors that the sentencing authority weighs.
The seriousness and circumstances of the solicited offense matter, including how concrete and dangerous the plan was. Whether the accused offered inducements, applied pressure, or repeated the request can aggravate the conduct. On the other side, evidence in mitigation can substantially reduce the sentence. A genuine, voluntary renunciation accompanied by steps to prevent the offense, while not a defense to a completed solicitation, can serve as mitigation. The accused’s record of service, rehabilitative potential, acceptance of responsibility, and the absence of any actual harm can all weigh in the accused’s favor.
Because solicitation is complete upon communication and does not require that the solicited offense ever be carried out, the absence of actual harm is often a central theme in arguments for a lighter sentence.
Practical Guidance
A service member trying to understand their exposure should not anchor on a number found online for solicitation generally. The meaningful figure is the maximum authorized for the specific offense that was solicited, as modified by the Article 82 framework and limited by the forum. Defense counsel can identify that ceiling precisely by examining the charged object offense and the applicable provisions of the Manual for Courts-Martial.
Counsel can also assess realistic outcomes by evaluating the strength of the intent evidence, the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the forum in which the case is likely to be tried. That assessment is far more useful than a generic range, because it accounts for the factors that actually drive a sentence.
Conclusion
There is no fixed sentencing range for solicitation of felony-level UCMJ offenses, because Article 82 ties the punishment to the offense solicited and caps it at the maximum authorized for that underlying offense. The exposure can be severe when the object offense is serious, and a court-martial sentence may include confinement, forfeitures, reduction in grade, and a punitive discharge, subject to the limits of the forum. The actual sentence turns on the seriousness of the solicited offense and on the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the case. The only reliable way to gauge exposure is to identify the specific offense solicited and consult experienced defense counsel about the maximum that genuinely applies.
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.