Table Content
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, forgery is governed by Article 123, not Article 105. Article 105 addresses misconduct as a prisoner. Because the request concerns forgery, the following overview summarizes the offense as codified in Article 123.
Article 123 criminalizes the false making or materially altering of a writing with legal significance, when done with intent to defraud. The statute covers documents that, if genuine, would impose a legal liability, confer a legal right, or affect a legal interest. The offense focuses on the creation or alteration of the writing itself, not merely its use.
The article prohibits the following conduct:
“Material alteration” means a change that affects the legal rights or obligations reflected in the document.
Any person subject to the UCMJ may be charged under Article 123. This includes active-duty servicemembers and others falling within UCMJ jurisdiction at the time of the conduct.
The offense requires specific intent to defraud. The accused must know the writing is false or altered and must act with the purpose of gaining an unlawful advantage or causing another to suffer a legal detriment. Negligent or accidental creation or alteration of a document does not satisfy the statute.
Attempted forgery is punishable under Article 80 when the accused takes a substantial step toward completing the offense. Conspiracy to commit forgery is chargeable under Article 81. A person who aids, abets, or assists another in committing forgery may be held liable as a principal under Article 77.
The government bears the burden of proving each element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In the context of forgery under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, liability arises only when all legally required components of the offense are established with competent evidence.
The mens rea for forgery is intent to defraud, which requires proof that the accused acted with the purpose of deceiving another and thereby causing a gain to oneself or a loss or potential loss to another. Mere falsity or alteration of a document is insufficient without evidence of this specific intent.
The actus reus consists of the false making or material alteration of a writing that appears to be genuine and that, if genuine, would have legal significance. The writing must be capable of affecting legal rights, such as contracts, receipts, official records, or other instruments recognized in law.
Key statutory terms include “false making,” which refers to creating a writing that purports to be authentic but is not, and “legal efficacy,” meaning the writing must be one that the law recognizes as capable of creating, modifying, or extinguishing a legal right or obligation.
Punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) varies depending on when the alleged offense occurred. Offenses committed before December 27, 2023, are sentenced under the traditional maximum_punishment model. Offenses occurring on or after that date are sentenced under the Military Justice Act of 2016’s updated framework, which assigns offenses to sentencing categories with defined confinement ranges.
Under the pre_December 27, 2023 system, Article 105 (Forgery) carried a fixed maximum punishment authorized by the President in the Manual for Courts_Martial. The maximum punishment included:
Under this model, the sentencing authority could impose any lawful sentence up to these maximums, but not exceed them.
For offenses occurring on or after December 27, 2023, Article 105 falls within the updated sentencing_category structure, which replaces offense_specific maximum punishments with standardized ranges. Article 105 is assigned to a category authorizing a confinement range up to 5 years.
The sentencing_category system differs from the prior model by using standardized categories rather than individualized maximum sentences for each offense. Each category carries a fixed confinement range, and the sentencing authority selects a sentence within that range. Punitive discharges, reductions, and forfeitures remain available but are not tied to specific categories unless expressly required.
Charging decisions under Article 105 typically reflect clear factual patterns uncovered during routine administrative processes, complaints from affected entities, or financial irregularities detected by command authorities. Investigators and commanders generally focus on conduct involving the creation or alteration of documents with apparent legal significance, assessing intent based on circumstantial evidence and contextual behavior rather than dramatic or unusual scenarios.
Article 105 allegations most often arise from day_to_day administrative and financial activities where service members handle official documents. Common situations include:
These allegations typically surface when discrepancies appear during routine audits, administrative reviews, or third-party verification efforts.
Prosecutors often pair Article 105 with other UCMJ violations when the conduct implicates multiple legal interests. Common co-charges include:
Cases generally begin with administrative anomaly detection, such as finance office flags, personnel record inconsistencies, or supervisory concerns about document authenticity. Once irregularities are identified, commands may initiate preliminary inquiries or command-directed investigations. If potential criminality is apparent, law-enforcement agencies—CID for the Army, NCIS for the Navy and Marine Corps, OSI for the Air Force and Space Force, or CGIS for the Coast Guard—typically assume responsibility. These agencies verify document authenticity, trace signatures, and interview witnesses involved in processing the suspect paperwork.
Charging patterns often reflect the intertwined nature of forgery with broader administrative or financial misconduct. Overlapping statutes may be used to present alternative theories based on document creation, submission, and resulting benefits. Charge-stacking is not uncommon, particularly when a forged document triggers multiple administrative or financial actions. Prosecutors generally structure charges to capture each distinct act—creation, use, and benefit—while ensuring that overlapping allegations remain legally supportable.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 105: Forgery often hinge on the government’s ability to prove each statutory element beyond a reasonable doubt. Litigation commonly focuses on the reliability of documentary or digital evidence, the credibility of witnesses involved in drafting or handling the document at issue, and the interpretation of statutory language governing what constitutes a forged or falsely altered writing. Courts frequently address threshold evidentiary questions that shape the scope of admissible proof.
Disputes frequently arise over whether the document at issue meets the statutory definition of a writing capable of affecting legal rights or obligations. Questions may also emerge regarding whether a signature, endorsement, or alteration is sufficiently attributable to the accused. Litigation can focus on:
These issues often involve detailed factual analyses of the document’s purpose, chain of custody, and the manner in which it was created or presented.
Because Article 105 requires proof that the accused acted with intent to defraud, the mental-state element is a central focus in many cases. Courts frequently assess whether the evidence supports an inference that the accused knowingly made or used a false writing or whether the conduct is more consistent with mistake, misunderstanding, or administrative error. The degree of knowledge the accused possessed regarding the document’s legal effect, as well as any circumstantial evidence of a motive to obtain a benefit or avoid a detriment, often becomes a point of contention.
Witness credibility can be pivotal in forgery cases, particularly where direct evidence of the accused’s conduct is limited. Disagreements about who prepared, transmitted, or signed a document often turn on the testimony of administrative personnel, supervisors, or experts familiar with standard document procedures. Inconsistencies, memory gaps, or conflicting accounts may influence how the factfinder evaluates competing factual narratives.
Common evidentiary challenges include the admissibility of statements made during investigative interviews, the scope and legality of searches that uncover documentary or digital materials, and authentication of electronic records. Courts may also evaluate whether handwriting analysis, metadata, or audit logs meet admissibility standards and whether prior administrative interactions with the document are relevant and permissible.
Questions of interpretation may arise concerning what constitutes a “false” writing, the threshold for legal significance, and the scope of documents covered under Article 105. Courts may also consider how Article 105 interacts with related provisions involving fraud, false official statements, or misuse of government records. Ambiguities in these areas can lead to litigation focused on legislative intent, historical application, and consistency with broader military justice principles.
Offenses involving false passes or identification closely related to forgery
False official statements that are frequently linked to forged documents
Credit card and access device fraud often co-charged with document forgery
Fraud against the United States as a broader financial-misconduct offense
Worthless check offenses involving fraudulent financial instruments
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may arise independently of any sentence imposed by a court-martial. These outcomes may result from military regulations, federal or state laws, or professional standards that apply regardless of the specific punishment ordered in a criminal proceeding.
A conviction under UCMJ Article 105 for forgery can trigger a range of administrative actions. These may include initiation of administrative separation proceedings or influence the characterization of discharge, which may be recorded as general or other-than-honorable depending on the circumstances. The conviction can also affect promotion eligibility, as substantiated integrity-related misconduct is commonly reviewed unfavorably by promotion boards. Additionally, forgery-related convictions may influence retirement eligibility, particularly where continued service is deemed inconsistent with good order and discipline. Reenlistment opportunities or accessions into other branches of the military may also be limited as a result of the record of misconduct.
Forgery offenses often raise concerns about trustworthiness and reliability, factors central to eligibility for a security clearance. A conviction may lead to suspension, revocation, or denial of clearance, affecting current assignments or future billets requiring access to classified information. After military service, some government and contractor positions that rely on clearance eligibility may be more difficult to obtain.
Article 105 forgery convictions generally do not trigger sex offender registration. However, certain fraud_related or identity_related offenses may require reporting under specific federal or state regulatory schemes. Such requirements are governed by applicable civilian laws, not by the UCMJ itself.
The conduct underlying a forgery conviction may also violate federal or state fraud, identity theft, or document_related statutes. In some cases, this may result in separate civilian prosecution or exposure to civil liability, depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the forged documents.
For non_citizens, a forgery conviction may affect immigration status, including admissibility or eligibility for certain benefits. In some cases, document_related offenses may raise issues relevant to naturalization or ongoing immigration proceedings.
During an investigation under UCMJ Article 105: Forgery, decisions made in the earliest stages often influence the direction and outcome of the case. Actions taken before charges are preferred can shape how evidence is viewed, how investigators interpret conduct, and what options remain available later in the process.
Military investigators frequently collect key evidence—such as written records, electronic files, and witness statements—shortly after an allegation is raised. Early legal involvement can help ensure that statements are accurately documented, that potentially exculpatory material is not overlooked, and that digital or administrative records are preserved in a way that reflects their full context. Civilian military defense lawyers can also help evaluate how investigators may interpret early findings.
Command or law-enforcement interviews often occur before a service member fully understands the scope of the allegations. Without guidance, a service member may provide statements that are incomplete, imprecise, or taken out of context. Early interviews may also involve unclear rights advisements or assumptions about intent, which can complicate later defense efforts.
Command-directed investigations, administrative inquiries, and quality-of-service reviews can move forward even when no criminal charges have been filed. Early decisions in these processes, such as written responses or document submissions, may influence both administrative outcomes and any subsequent judicial proceedings.
Choices made early—consenting to searches, providing statements, or responding to administrative requests—can have lasting effects throughout a court-martial or administrative action. These early actions may shape the narrative of the case, define evidentiary boundaries, and affect the range of options available later in the process.
Gonzalez & Waddington is a civilian military defense law firm that represents service members worldwide in cases arising under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The firm focuses on defending clients in a wide range of military criminal matters, including allegations involving UCMJ Article 105: Forgery. With extensive experience navigating the military justice system, the firm provides informed guidance and defense strategies tailored to the unique procedures and standards of courts-martial and related military actions.
If you are facing an allegation under UCMJ Article 105 or have questions about the military justice process, you may contact Gonzalez & Waddington to discuss your situation and explore available options. The firm can provide a confidential consultation to help you understand the procedures involved and the potential paths forward.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 105: Forgery cover?
A: UCMJ Article 105 addresses the creation, alteration, or use of a document, signature, or writing with intent to deceive or mislead. The provision applies when a service member knowingly produces or presents a writing that appears authentic but is not, and does so to obtain an unauthorized benefit or cause harm. The article focuses on the intent behind the act and the potential impact on official processes or military operations.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 105: Forgery?
A: The maximum punishment depends on the severity of the conduct, the nature of the forged document, and whether the misconduct affected military functions or financial interests. Potential penalties can include confinement, forfeiture of pay and allowances, reduction in rank, and a punitive discharge. Sentencing decisions are determined by a court-martial based on the facts of the case, the service member’s record, and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances presented.
Q: Can an allegation under this article lead to administrative separation even without a conviction?
A: Yes. Commanders may initiate administrative separation proceedings based on substantiated misconduct or a pattern of behavior, even if the case does not result in a court-martial conviction. Administrative actions use a lower standard of proof than judicial proceedings. As a result, a service member may face career-impacting consequences if an investigation provides sufficient grounds for the command to determine that retention is not in the best interest of the service.
Q: Do I need a civilian military defense lawyer for an investigation under this article?
A: Service members have the right to consult with a military defense counsel at no cost, and many also choose to hire a civilian attorney. A civilian lawyer is optional but may provide additional time, resources, and experience in complex financial or document-related cases. The decision should be based on the seriousness of the allegations, the expected complexity of the investigation, and the member’s preference for additional representation.
Q: Can allegations under Article 105 be handled without a court-martial, such as through administrative action or nonjudicial punishment?
A: Yes. Commands may address less serious cases through nonjudicial punishment or administrative measures rather than a court-martial. These alternatives depend on the scope and impact of the alleged misconduct, the strength of the available evidence, and the commander’s assessment of the appropriate level of response. Administrative handling does not eliminate potential career effects but may avoid the more severe consequences associated with judicial proceedings.
Q: What types of evidence are typically reviewed in a forgery investigation?
A: Investigators commonly examine original documents, electronic records, authentication data, witness statements, and any available forensic handwriting or digital analysis. They may also review financial transactions or communication trails that suggest intent or knowledge. The goal is to determine whether the document was intentionally falsified and whether the service member had a role in creating or using it. The relevance and weight of each item depend on the specific circumstances of the case.
Q: Which military or federal agencies commonly investigate forgery allegations?
A: Investigations may be conducted by military law enforcement, such as CID, NCIS, or OSI, depending on the branch involved. In cases involving financial fraud, identity documents, or government records, federal agencies may also participate or provide support. The investigating authority evaluates the authenticity of documents, potential financial impacts, and any related misconduct to determine whether a violation of UCMJ Article 105 has occurred.
To better understand the Articles of the UCMJ and how military law works in practice, you can review the UCMJ and related authorities here: UCMJ Articles and Military Justice Resources. For additional official guidance, visit the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps website at jag.navy.mil.
A renowned military criminal defense attorney and best-selling author, Michael Waddington defends clients worldwide in serious cases and trains lawyers in advanced cross-examination. He is frequently featured by major media outlets like CNN and 60 Minutes.
Alexandra González-Waddington is a top military and civilian defense attorney who has handled high-profile sexual assault, violent crime, and war-crimes cases globally. Her work is widely recognized by media outlets including 60 Minutes and ABC’s Nightline.
