Table Content
Article 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice establishes criminal liability for wrongfully impersonating certain categories of military personnel or officials. Although numbering conventions have changed over time, the core offense concerns falsely assuming an official capacity with the intent to obtain a benefit or to mislead others about one’s authority. The statute applies to conduct that undermines the integrity of rank, position, or official status within the military structure.
The article criminalizes the act of representing oneself as a commissioned officer, noncommissioned officer, petty officer, or other official authority figure without being lawfully entitled to that status. It also encompasses wearing insignia, uniforms, badges, or other identifying marks that convey such authority when done for a wrongful purpose. The offense focuses on deception that causes or is likely to cause others to rely on the false representation.
Article 106 applies to all persons subject to the UCMJ, including active-duty servicemembers, reservists on active status, and in certain circumstances retirees recalled to service. The provision may also apply to other individuals subject to UCMJ jurisdiction under special statutory conditions. The applicability turns on jurisdiction at the time of the conduct.
The offense generally requires knowledge that the accused is not entitled to the rank or status impersonated. It also requires intent to deceive or to obtain a benefit, privilege, or compliance. Mere mistaken wear of an item without deceptive intent ordinarily does not meet the mental element.
Attempt and conspiracy provisions under Articles 80 and 81 may apply when an accused takes substantial steps toward impersonation or agrees with others to commit the offense. Accomplice liability under Article 77 can apply to individuals who assist, encourage, or facilitate another in the act of impersonation. These theories are commonly used when impersonation is part of broader deceptive or fraudulent conduct.
The government must prove each element of the offense of impersonation under Article 106, UCMJ, beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements identify the specific conduct and mental state required for a lawful conviction and reflect the statutory structure of the offense.
The mens rea for Article 106 is the intent to deceive. This requires proof that the accused knowingly engaged in the false representation and did so for the purpose of causing another to believe the impersonation was genuine. Mere pretense or joking without this intent does not satisfy the statutory requirement.
The actus reus consists of both the false representation of rank or status and the performance of an act consistent with that assumed status. The government must show that the accused did more than merely claim the rank; the accused must have acted in a manner purporting to exercise the authority or functions of the impersonated position.
Key statutory terms include “commissioned officer,” “noncommissioned officer,” and “petty officer,” each referring to a legally recognized grade within the armed forces. “Wrongful” signifies the absence of legal justification or authorization for the assumed role.
Punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) depends on the date of the alleged offense. The UCMJ used a traditional maximum_punishment model for offenses committed before December 27, 2023. Offenses committed on or after that date fall under the Military Justice Act of 2016’s fully implemented sentencing framework, which uses sentencing categories and confinement ranges.
For the offense historically listed as Article 106 (Impostors/Impersonation) under the pre_2019 arrangement of the UCMJ—an Article 134_type offense involving the wrongful impersonation of a commissioned, warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer—the maximum authorized punishment was:
These punishments followed the traditional maximum_punishment structure: the court_martial could adjudge any lawful punishment up to (but not exceeding) the stated maximums.
Under the revised sentencing system applicable to offenses committed on or after December 27, 2023, impersonation_type misconduct—now aligned with Article 134 specifications—is assigned to a sentencing category that sets a confinement range rather than a single maximum. Impersonation offenses fall within a category authorizing:
Sentencing categories differ from the previous model by providing structured ranges for confinement, rather than a single maximum term. The military judge selects a sentence within the applicable range, subject to statutory and regulatory limits. Other punitive elements—such as punitive separations, reductions, and forfeitures—remain authorized when listed for the offense but are adjudged independently of the confinement range.
Charging decisions under Article 106 are driven by concrete fact patterns, the results of preliminary inquiries or law_enforcement investigations, and the discretion of commanders evaluating the impact of the alleged impersonation on authority structures or mission integrity. Cases tend to arise when impersonation is used to obtain access, benefits, or compliance, and the charging approach reflects what investigators can substantiate rather than the theoretical reach of the statute.
In practice, Article 106 allegations tend to follow a relatively small set of patterns. The most frequent scenario involves a service member presenting themselves as holding a higher rank, specialty, or billet in order to gain privileges, enter restricted areas, or influence junior personnel. Another recurring pattern is impersonation of a specific official—such as a commander, first sergeant, or inspector—during electronic communications, especially text messages or emails, which prompts subordinates to take actions they otherwise would not. Some cases originate from misuse of uniforms, insignia, or identification to access transportation, facilities, or government services. Less often, impersonation allegations emerge from off_duty conduct where a service member assumes a false military status in interactions with civilian authorities or businesses.
Cases typically begin with a unit-level complaint, an anomalous report in administrative channels, or a supervisor noticing inconsistencies in rank, credentials, or authority claims. Commanders may initiate a command-directed inquiry to clarify basic facts. When impersonation involves fraud, security breaches, or digital communications, military law-enforcement agencies such as CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS often assume the investigation. These agencies verify communication records, access logs, and witness statements to determine whether the impersonation was intentional, repeated, and linked to a tangible action or benefit.
Prosecutors commonly apply overlapping charges when the same conduct satisfies multiple statutory elements. Charge_stacking occurs when impersonation supports both a standalone Article 106 charge and related offenses tied to the benefit or access obtained. Alternative theories are sometimes used—such as pairing Article 106 with Article 134—allowing a panel to evaluate the conduct under different frameworks depending on the evidence. Overall, charging trends emphasize the misuse of perceived authority and the operational consequences of that misuse.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 106, which addresses impersonation of a commissioned officer, noncommissioned officer, petty officer, agent, or official, often center on whether the government can prove each statutory element beyond a reasonable doubt. Litigated issues frequently involve factual disputes, witness reliability, evidentiary rulings, and interpretation of specific statutory terms and incorporated definitions.
Contested issues commonly arise over whether the accused’s conduct satisfies particular elements of Article 106. These challenges typically involve:
Questions regarding the accused’s state of mind frequently become central. Litigation may involve whether the government has shown that the accused knowingly and intentionally presented themselves as an official when they understood the representation to be false. Disputes may also arise when the statute or associated case law requires proof that the accused acted with a particular purpose, such as obtaining something of value or causing another to act. Where recklessness or negligence is relevant under specific charging theories, courts may evaluate whether the accused’s conduct demonstrates the required mental state in light of the surrounding circumstances.
Witness credibility is often pivotal in impersonation cases, which may depend heavily on verbal statements, perceived authority, or contextual cues. Inconsistent accounts between witnesses, discrepancies in recollection, or uncertainties about the circumstances of the alleged impersonation can significantly influence fact-finding. Credibility assessments may also arise regarding investigators’ interpretations of statements or actions attributed to the accused.
Article 106 prosecutions frequently involve evidentiary questions concerning the admissibility of statements made by the accused, including whether they were obtained in compliance with Article 31(b) rights advisement. Searches that uncover uniforms, insignia, documents, or digital communications may be challenged for probable cause or scope. Disputes can also occur over the authentication of electronic messages, metadata, or recordings that purport to show impersonation-related conduct.
Courts may confront ambiguity in defining which positions are covered by Article 106, the level of conduct necessary to constitute impersonation, or how cross-referenced provisions from other UCMJ articles or regulatory texts apply. Interpretation questions may also involve the extent to which modern forms of communication, digital representations, or unofficial insignia fall within the statute’s intended scope.
Overview of Article 134 general misconduct provisions
Offenses involving false identification documents
False official statements connected to impersonation conduct
Use of false pretenses to obtain services during an impersonation scheme
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may arise independently of any sentence imposed by a court-martial. These outcomes are typically governed by military regulations, federal or state law, and professional standards rather than by the military judge’s findings or adjudged punishment.
A conviction for impersonation under UCMJ Article 106 may prompt administrative actions separate from the court_martial process. Command authorities may initiate administrative separation proceedings, which can result in discharge characterizations that vary from honorable to other than honorable. Such a conviction may also affect promotion eligibility, limit opportunities for reenlistment, or influence retention boards. In cases involving senior service members, it may impact retirement grade determinations or overall retirement eligibility. Future military service, whether in active, reserve, or National Guard components, may also be restricted.
Impersonation offenses can raise concerns about trustworthiness and integrity, factors central to security clearance determinations. A conviction may lead to suspension, revocation, or denial of access to classified information. Post_service employment that depends on clearance eligibility, such as defense contracting or federal positions, may likewise be affected.
Convictions under Article 106 generally do not trigger sex offender registration, but reporting requirements depend on the specific conduct and on federal and state law. Certain impersonation_related behaviors, if tied to underlying offenses requiring registration, could result in reporting obligations based on civilian jurisdiction rules.
The same conduct underlying an impersonation conviction may also fall under federal or state criminal statutes, such as impersonation of a federal officer or identity_related offenses. Civil liability may arise in cases involving fraud, financial loss, or reputational harm.
For non_citizens, a conviction may affect immigration status, admissibility determinations, or future naturalization efforts. These effects depend on federal immigration law and the nature of the underlying conduct.
During the investigative phase of a potential UCMJ Article 106 impersonation case, decisions made by the service member often influence the direction, scope, and perception of the inquiry long before any charges are preferred. Early representation helps ensure those decisions are made with a clear understanding of the process and its implications.
Military investigators collect evidence at the outset of a case, often before the service member becomes aware of all relevant details. Early legal involvement can help ensure that statements, digital materials, and supporting documents are preserved accurately and that the context of any evidence is not misinterpreted due to incomplete information.
Command or law-enforcement interviews frequently occur before a service member fully understands the nature of the allegations or how their responses may be used. Without guidance, a member may provide statements that are incomplete, unclear, or inconsistent simply because the investigative scope is not explained at the outset.
Administrative inquiries or command-directed investigations can run parallel to or independent of criminal processes. Early choices—such as cooperating with preliminary fact-finding efforts—can influence later determinations even if no criminal charges are ultimately brought. Civilian military defense lawyers sometimes assist service members in understanding how these parallel tracks interact.
Initial decisions about consenting to searches, providing statements, or responding to administrative requests can affect evidentiary issues, credibility assessments, and the strategic posture of a case throughout a court-martial or administrative proceeding. These early steps often shape options available later in the process.
Gonzalez & Waddington is a civilian military defense law firm that focuses on representing service members facing allegations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The firm provides legal counsel to clients stationed worldwide and has experience handling a wide range of military criminal cases, including those involving allegations of impersonation under UCMJ Article 106.
If you are facing an allegation under UCMJ Article 106 or believe you may be under investigation, Gonzalez & Waddington can provide informed legal guidance tailored to your situation. Contact the firm to discuss your circumstances and explore your options during a confidential consultation.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 106: Impersonation cover?
A: Article 106 addresses situations in which a service member wrongfully pretends to be another person, typically someone with official capacity or authority, with the intent to gain a benefit or cause some form of harm. The article applies to impersonation involving ranks, positions, or identities that could influence official actions or mislead others in military settings. The focus is on the deceptive act and the potential impact on good order and discipline.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 106: Impersonation?
A: The maximum punishment depends on the nature and seriousness of the impersonation. Consequences can include confinement, reduction in grade, forfeiture of pay, and a punitive discharge. If the impersonation involves an attempt to obtain something of value or influence official duties, penalties may be more severe. Commanders and courts consider the intent, circumstances, and any resulting impact on military operations or trust when determining an appropriate sentence.
Q: Can an allegation under this article lead to administrative separation even without a conviction?
A: Yes. A command may pursue administrative separation independently of a court-martial conviction if it determines that the alleged conduct is incompatible with military service. Administrative actions use a lower burden of proof than criminal proceedings, and the command evaluates overall reliability, potential impact on unit operations, and service record. Outcomes can range from retention with counseling to separation with a characterization of service based on the circumstances.
Q: Do I need a civilian military defense lawyer for an investigation under this article?
A: Service members have the right to consult military defense counsel at no cost, and some choose to hire civilian counsel for additional support. A civilian attorney may offer more time or specialized experience, but it is not required. Decisions about representation typically depend on the complexity of the case, the potential consequences, and the member’s personal preference regarding legal guidance during the investigation or any resulting proceedings.
Q: Can this be handled without a court-martial, such as through administrative action or nonjudicial punishment?
A: Yes. Commands may address impersonation allegations through administrative measures, corrective training, counseling, or nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 when the conduct is considered less serious. These options allow the command to address the issue without initiating criminal proceedings. The approach depends on the intent behind the impersonation, any operational effect, and the service member’s duty performance and record.
Q: Which agencies typically investigate impersonation allegations under this article?
A: Investigations may be conducted by military law enforcement organizations such as the Army CID, Air Force OSI, Navy NCIS, or Marine Corps CID, depending on the branch involved. Command-directed inquiries or administrative investigations may also be used when the alleged conduct is less severe. The investigative scope generally focuses on communications, witnesses, electronic records, and any documents that could clarify intent or verify whether deception occurred.
Q: What types of evidence are commonly reviewed in impersonation cases?
A: Evidence in these cases often includes electronic communications, identification documents, witness statements, and any materials showing a representation of authority or identity. Investigators also examine whether the accused gained or attempted to gain a benefit or influence others through the impersonation. The evidence is evaluated to determine intent, accuracy of identity claims, and the effect on military functions or personnel relying on the misrepresented information.
You can review the individual Articles of the UCMJ and learn more about military law by clicking here: UCMJ Articles and Military Justice Resources. You can also explore official military law guidance from the Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps at jagcnet.army.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.
