A frequent and urgent question for service members connected to a sexual offense allegation is how long the government has to bring charges. In many areas of criminal law, a statute of limitations sets a hard deadline, and once it passes the case cannot proceed. For charges under Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 920), the answer turns heavily on when the alleged conduct occurred. For modern offenses there is effectively no clock, while older offenses were governed by a fixed limitation period. Understanding which rule applies, and what the act of preferral actually does to the timeline, is essential to evaluating any Article 120 matter.
The Statute of Limitations for Recent Offenses
For the most serious sexual offenses under Article 120, Congress has eliminated the statute of limitations. For offenses occurring on or after December 26, 2013, there is no limitation period, which means the government may bring charges regardless of how many years have passed since the alleged conduct. This change grew out of legislative reforms aimed at allowing prosecution of military sexual offenses long after the events, in recognition of how often such allegations surface only after significant delay. The practical effect is stark: a service member can face an Article 120 charge for conduct alleged to have occurred many years earlier, and the passage of time alone will not bar the prosecution.
The Older Rule for Earlier Conduct
The absence of a limitation period was not always the law. For sexual assault offenses occurring before December 26, 2013, a limitation period of five years applied. Whether a particular older allegation is time barred therefore depends on the precise date of the alleged conduct and the limitation rule in force at that time. These timing questions can be legally intricate, especially for conduct near the dividing date, and they are exactly the kind of issue that defense counsel will examine closely. A service member facing an allegation about events from many years ago should not assume the case is either barred or viable without a careful analysis of the applicable date and rule.
What Preferral Means in the Timeline
Preferral is the formal act that begins the court-martial charging process. An accuser signs the charge sheet, the DD Form 458, under oath before a commissioned officer, swearing that the charges and specifications are true to the best of their knowledge and belief. The date entered on the charge sheet is the official date of preferral. For offenses still subject to a statute of limitations, preferral is the event that stops the limitations clock. Because Article 120 offenses committed on or after December 26, 2013, have no limitation period, the timing of preferral is not constrained by a limitations deadline for that category of conduct, though preferral remains the procedural starting point that the case must pass through.
Notice and the Steps That Follow Preferral
Although there is no outer deadline for preferring charges on recent Article 120 offenses, the rules do impose obligations once charges are preferred. After preferral, the accused must be informed of the charges and specifications and of the identity of the person who preferred them, and that notification should normally occur promptly, ordinarily on the same day as preferral. From there the case proceeds through the established sequence: a preliminary hearing under Article 32 in general court-martial cases, review by a convening authority, and referral, which is the convening authority’s formal decision to send the case to a particular court-martial. Each of these steps has its own procedural requirements, but they are part of the process that follows preferral rather than limitation periods governing whether charges may be preferred at all.
The Role of Independent Prosecutors
A structural feature now shapes how Article 120 charging decisions are made. Authority over covered offenses, including those under Article 120, rests with independent special trial counsel who operate outside the accused’s ordinary chain of command. This means the decision whether and when to prefer or pursue such charges is made by dedicated prosecutors rather than by the accused’s immediate commander. While this reform addresses who controls the charging decision rather than imposing a new deadline, it is an important part of the current landscape for anyone trying to understand how an Article 120 case moves forward.
Practical Takeaways
The central timeline point is that Article 120 offenses occurring on or after December 26, 2013, carry no statute of limitations, so the government may prefer charges years after the alleged events, while a five-year limitation applied to qualifying sexual assault offenses occurring before that date. Preferral is the formal, oath-backed start of the charging process and historically the event that stopped the limitations clock for offenses still subject to one. A service member who learns of an Article 120 allegation, no matter how old, should consult qualified defense counsel promptly. Counsel can determine which limitation rule applies based on the alleged dates, evaluate whether any timing defense exists, and prepare for the procedural steps that follow preferral.
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.