Table Content
Article 105a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes the creation, use, transfer, or possession of fraudulent military passes or identification documents. The provision is designed to protect the integrity of official documents used to control access, verify identity, and regulate movement within military jurisdictions. The offense applies to conduct involving both physical and electronic forms of identification.
The article prohibits knowingly making, altering, counterfeiting, or tampering with a military pass or identification card. It also covers the use or possession of such a document when the individual knows it to be false or unauthorized. Providing, selling, or distributing a false or altered pass to another person is likewise prohibited.
Common examples of prohibited conduct include:
Article 105a applies to all persons subject to the UCMJ, including active duty service members, reservists on active status, and others who fall under military jurisdiction at the time of the offense. Civilians not subject to the UCMJ cannot normally be charged under this article, though related federal statutes may apply.
The offense generally requires proof that the accused acted knowingly. The government must show that the individual was aware the document was false, altered, or unauthorized. Negligent possession or unintentional misuse does not ordinarily satisfy the statute.
Attempted violations of Article 105a may be charged under Article 80, which covers attempts to commit any UCMJ offense. Conspiracy to commit a false_identification offense may be charged under Article 81. Accomplice liability may apply when a person aids, abets, or assists another in creating or using fraudulent identification documents.
The government must prove each element of an Article 105a offense beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements define the precise conduct and mental state that constitute making, altering, possessing, or using false military passes or identification documents.
The mens rea for Article 105a requires that the accused knowingly engage in the prohibited conduct and possess an intent to deceive or to have the false document treated as authentic. Mere inadvertent possession or use, without knowledge of falsity, does not satisfy this requirement.
The actus reus consists of creating, modifying, distributing, presenting, or possessing a false or altered pass or identification card. The offense encompasses both active fabrication and passive possession when paired with the requisite knowledge and intent.
Key statutory terms include “pass” and “identification card,” which refer to official documents issued or authorized by the United States military for authentication, access, or identification. A document is “false” when it is forged, altered, or otherwise not lawfully issued or modified.
Punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice depends on the date of the alleged offense. Offenses committed before December 27, 2023 are sentenced under the traditional maximum_punishment model, while offenses committed on or after that date are sentenced under the standardized sentencing_category framework established by the Military Justice Act implementation changes.
Under the pre_December 27, 2023 system, Article 105a (False Pass or Identification Offenses) carried a single maximum authorized punishment set directly in the punitive article. The maximum punishment included:
These punishments represented the ceiling a court_martial could impose, with sentencing determined case by case.
For offenses occurring on or after December 27, 2023, Article 105a is assigned to Sentencing Category 2 under Appendix 12A of the Manual for Courts_Martial. Sentencing is governed by the limits of that category rather than the standalone maximum listed in the punitive article. Under Category 2, the authorized punishment includes:
Under the category system, each offense is assigned a specific sentencing category, and the court_martial may sentence within the defined confinement range for that category. This differs from the prior model, which relied on single maximum punishments unique to each punitive article. The new framework standardizes confinement limits across offenses of similar seriousness while retaining traditional punitive elements such as punitive discharges, reductions, and forfeitures.
In real military prosecutions, charging decisions under Article 105a are generally shaped by the factual development of the case, the investigative route through which the misconduct was discovered, and the command’s assessment of the service member’s intent and the impact on good order and discipline. Cases typically emerge from routine administrative processes, access_control checks, or discrepancies discovered during broader investigations.
Allegations under Article 105a most often arise from practical, day_to_day circumstances rather than elaborate schemes. Common fact patterns include:
Investigations typically begin at the point of detection—usually installation security forces, administrative personnel, or supervisors identifying a suspicious ID or pass. Initial reports often trigger a command_directed inquiry, which may escalate to law_enforcement involvement when intent, forgery indicators, or broader misconduct is suspected. CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS commonly take over when digital alteration, identity misuse, or related offenses suggest a need for forensic review, witness interviews, and chain_of_custody documentation.
Prosecutors frequently employ charge_stacking or alternative charging theories when the same conduct potentially violates multiple articles—for example, presenting a false ID, lying about its origin, and breaching an access regulation. Overlap with Articles 92, 107, and 134 is routine, reflecting the interconnected nature of administrative compliance, truthful reporting, and access_control enforcement. Commands also tend to charge both use and creation of the false document when evidence supports separate acts, ensuring coverage of all provable misconduct arising from a single course of action.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 105a, which addresses false pass or identification offenses, often hinge on the government’s ability to establish each statutory element, the reliability of witness accounts, the admissibility of key evidence, and the interpretation of statutory terms. Litigation commonly focuses on how these issues interact within the specific factual record of a case.
Disputes frequently arise over whether the government has satisfied its burden on one or more of the statutory elements required under Article 105a. These may involve questions such as whether the document in question qualifies as a “pass” or “identification” under the statute, whether it was “false” within the meaning of the provision, or whether the accused “used,” “possessed,” or “created” it in a manner prohibited by law. Challenges of this type generally focus on the quality and sufficiency of the government’s evidence, including the clarity of documentation, the chain of custody, and the precision with which the elements are framed in relation to the alleged conduct.
Intent or knowledge requirements often form a central area of litigation, particularly where Article 105a requires proof that the accused knew the identification was false, or acted with the intent to deceive or mislead. Disputes may arise when the evidence suggests inadvertence, misunderstanding, or administrative error rather than purposeful misconduct. Questions also emerge regarding the degree of mental state required—such as knowledge versus recklessness—especially when the statutory language incorporates cross-referenced provisions or uses terms that do not explicitly specify the required mens rea.
Credibility issues frequently shape the factual disputes in Article 105a cases. These may involve witnesses who handled or reviewed the identification documents, individuals who observed the alleged use or possession, or investigators who conducted interviews. Courts often must assess the reliability, consistency, and context of testimony, particularly where documentation is incomplete or where multiple individuals handled the evidence.
Common evidentiary disputes include the admissibility of statements made during interviews, the validity of searches or seizures that produced the identification document, and the authentication of digital or physical records. Suppression issues may arise when the defense challenges the legality of the investigative process, such as consent to search, scope of authority, or compliance with regulatory requirements during document examinations.
Statutory interpretation questions often arise from ambiguous terms, cross-references to other sections of the UCMJ, or undefined concepts such as what constitutes a “false” representation. Courts may also examine legislative history or related regulatory provisions to determine how the statute applies to complex or technologically evolving circumstances.
General Article guidance often used for misconduct accompanying false identification offenses
Forgery charges frequently accompany the creation or alteration of false passes
False official statement allegations commonly arise in cases involving fraudulent identification
Impersonation offenses are closely related to misuse of false identification documents
Access device fraud is another offense often co-charged in investigations involving false IDs
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may arise independently of the sentence imposed by a court_martial. These outcomes are typically determined by military regulations, federal law, or external agencies, and they may continue to affect a service member after the completion of judicial punishment.
A conviction under Article 105a may lead to administrative actions separate from the court_martial process. These can include:
Because false identification offenses relate to trustworthiness and reliability, a conviction may affect eligibility to hold or maintain a security clearance. Loss or suspension of access to classified information can limit assignments, career fields, or civilian employment that depends on clearance eligibility.
Convictions under Article 105a generally do not trigger sex offender registration. However, certain false identification conduct may implicate other federal or state reporting requirements depending on how the conduct intersects with identity_related crimes. Registration and reporting obligations are determined by federal and state law, not by the UCMJ alone.
The conduct underlying an Article 105a conviction may also violate federal or state identity_document laws. In some cases, civilian authorities may pursue separate criminal charges or civil actions, depending on jurisdiction and the specific facts.
For non_citizens or naturalized service members, a conviction involving fraudulent documents may affect immigration status, admissibility, or future naturalization processes. These consequences are determined by federal immigration law and may arise independently of military actions.
Decisions made during the investigative phase often shape the outcome of a case long before charges are preferred, particularly in matters involving UCMJ Article 105a. Early involvement from qualified defense counsel, including civilian military defense lawyers, helps ensure that the service member understands the investigative process and the implications of initial actions.
Military investigations typically begin collecting evidence immediately after an allegation is reported. Statements, identification documents, digital files, and access logs may be reviewed or seized early. When legal counsel is involved at this stage, they can help ensure that evidence is preserved accurately, that requests for information are handled properly, and that the interpretation of documents or digital material is grounded in appropriate legal context.
Interviews conducted by command authorities or law-enforcement agents often occur before a service member fully understands the nature of the allegations. Without legal guidance, a service member may provide incomplete or inaccurate information, waive rights unknowingly, or respond to questions that extend beyond the intended scope of the inquiry.
Command-directed investigations and administrative inquiries can move forward even when criminal charges have not been preferred. Early statements or administrative responses in these processes may influence command perceptions and have consequences independent of any later criminal proceedings.
Choices made early—such as consenting to searches, providing written statements, or responding to administrative requests—can affect later stages of a case. These decisions may shape the evidence available at court-martial, inform command decisions regarding administrative action, and influence the overall course of the matter.
Gonzalez & Waddington is a civilian military defense law firm dedicated to representing service members facing allegations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The firm focuses on defending clients worldwide in cases involving complex military criminal charges, courts-martial, and adverse administrative actions. With extensive experience navigating military justice systems across all branches, Gonzalez & Waddington provides informed, strategic guidance to service members confronting challenging legal situations.
If you are facing allegations under UCMJ Article 105a or have been notified of an investigation, Gonzalez & Waddington can help you understand your rights and options. Contact the firm to discuss your situation and receive a confidential consultation focused on your specific circumstances.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 105a: False Pass or Identification Offenses cover?
A: UCMJ Article 105a addresses conduct involving the creation, possession, transfer, or use of false passes, identification cards, or similar documents intended to misrepresent a person’s identity or authorization status. The article applies when the individual knowingly engages in fraudulent activity that undermines security, access control, or accountability within the military. Liability can attach regardless of whether the false document was actually used, as long as the intent and knowing involvement can be demonstrated.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 105a: False Pass or Identification Offenses?
A: The maximum punishment depends on the specific conduct and circumstances, but it may include confinement, reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay, and a punitive discharge if adjudged at a court-martial. The severity is influenced by factors such as the nature of the document, the intended use, and whether the misconduct affected security or operational readiness. Commanders and military judges consider aggravating and mitigating details when determining an appropriate sentence.
Q: Can an allegation under this article lead to administrative separation even without a conviction?
A: Yes. Commanders retain discretion to initiate administrative separation proceedings based on substantiated misconduct or a pattern of behavior, even in the absence of a court-martial conviction. Administrative actions operate under a lower evidentiary standard than criminal proceedings. As a result, adverse administrative outcomes may occur if the commander determines the conduct reflects negatively on reliability, trustworthiness, or suitability for continued service, independent of any judicial finding.
Q: Do I need a civilian military defense lawyer for an investigation under this article?
A: Service members are entitled to detailed military counsel at no cost, but some choose to retain a civilian attorney for additional support or specialized experience. Whether to hire civilian counsel depends on personal preference, the complexity of the allegations, and the potential career implications. A civilian attorney can coordinate with military defense counsel, assist with evidence review, and help the service member understand procedural rights during investigations or administrative actions.
Q: Can this be handled without a court-martial, such as through administrative action or nonjudicial punishment?
A: Yes. Commands may address alleged violations of Article 105a through nonjudicial punishment, counseling, reprimands, or administrative separation when the circumstances do not warrant court-martial referral. These alternatives depend on the seriousness of the conduct, the service member’s record, and the commander’s assessment of what best maintains good order and discipline. Administrative dispositions generally involve lower evidentiary thresholds and may still affect career progression or retention.
Q: Which agencies typically investigate allegations of false pass or identification offenses?
A: Investigations may be conducted by military law enforcement agencies such as the Army CID, Air Force OSI, Navy NCIS, or Marine Corps CID, depending on the service branch. These agencies review documents, interview witnesses, and assess electronic or physical evidence related to identification misuse. In some situations, installation security personnel or access control officials initiate initial reporting, which may then be forwarded to the appropriate investigative office for further inquiry.
Q: What types of evidence are commonly reviewed in cases involving false identification documents?
A: Investigators typically examine the questioned document, electronic records, access logs, witness statements, and any digital communications that may reflect intent or knowledge. They may also assess surveillance footage, device metadata, or third-party verification sources to determine whether the identification was altered, fabricated, or used improperly. The focus is on establishing whether the service member knowingly participated in creating or using a false document and understanding the context surrounding the alleged conduct.
If you want to review the Articles of the UCMJ and learn more about military law, you can start here: UCMJ Articles and Military Justice Resources. You may also find helpful official information from the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps at afjag.af.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.
