Table Content
Article 106a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not currently define a “Stolen Valor” offense. Stolen valor_type misconduct within the armed forces is instead prosecuted under Article 134, which criminalizes the unauthorized wearing, use, or false representation of military decorations, medals, badges, or rank. The following overview explains the conduct typically treated as “stolen valor” under the UCMJ framework, using Article 134 as the controlling authority.
Stolen valor offenses involve falsely claiming the possession of military honors or wrongfully wearing items that signify achievements, qualifications, or rank. The misconduct is criminalized because it undermines good order, discipline, and the integrity of the awards system. Liability arises when the accused’s conduct is prejudicial to good order and discipline or brings discredit upon the armed forces.
The following actions fall within stolen_valor_type misconduct under Article 134:
Any person subject to the UCMJ may be charged, including active-duty members, certain reservists, and individuals in a status covered by jurisdictional provisions. Civilians not subject to the UCMJ are not chargeable under Article 134 but may face liability under federal stolen valor statutes.
The offense generally requires knowing or intentional conduct. The accused must be aware that the decoration or status claimed is unearned or unauthorized. Negligent or mistaken wear is ordinarily insufficient for criminal liability.
Attempt, conspiracy, and aiding-and-abetting liability under Articles 80, 81, and 77 may apply. These doctrines cover preparatory acts, agreements to commit the offense, and assistance provided to others engaging in false representation. They are used when the underlying conduct meets the elements of Article 134 but is incomplete or jointly carried out.
The government must prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt before an accused may be found guilty under Article 106a. These elements identify the specific conduct and mental state the prosecution must establish to sustain a conviction.
The mens rea required by Article 106a is the specific intent to obtain something of value. Mere unauthorized wear or possession is not sufficient; the government must show a purpose to secure tangible gain.
The actus reus consists of the wrongful wearing, use, purchase, sale, barter, manufacture, possession, or display of a military honor. The conduct must involve items that the accused is not entitled to possess or represent.
Statutory terms such as “decoration,” “medal,” “badge,” “ribbon,” and “device” refer to federally recognized military honors awarded for service or achievement. “Wrongfully” denotes conduct without legal authority, entitlement, or justification, and “tangible benefit” encompasses money, goods, services, or other measurable property interests.
Punishment for violations of Article 106a, UCMJ (Stolen Valor) depends on the date the alleged misconduct occurred. Offenses committed before December 27, 2023 are governed by the traditional maximum_punishment model in the Manual for Courts_Martial (MCM). Offenses on or after that date fall under the revised sentencing system that categorizes offenses and assigns confinement ranges accordingly.
Under the pre_December 27, 2023 sentencing structure, Article 106a carried the following maximum authorized punishment:
These punishments reflected the traditional model in which each offense had a fixed statutory maximum, and the sentencing authority determined an appropriate sentence up to that limit.
For conduct occurring on or after December 27, 2023, Article 106a is governed by the revised sentencing system established under the Military Justice Act reforms. Because the offense carries a maximum confinement of 1 year, it falls within Sentencing Category F.
The sentencing categories create structured confinement ranges rather than fixed statutory maximums tied to each offense. In contrast to the prior model, which specified a precise ceiling for every offense, the post_December 27, 2023 system groups offenses with similar seriousness into standardized categories. This allows the sentencing authority to impose any term of confinement within the applicable range while still applying the specific collateral punishments authorized for the offense, such as punitive discharges, reductions, and forfeitures.
Charging decisions under Article 106a are shaped by the specific facts available to investigators, the manner in which the allegation surfaces, and the priorities and discretion of the command. In practice, charges tend to arise from routine administrative processes or peer observations rather than from dramatic or unusual misconduct. The focus is typically on whether the member knowingly misrepresented an award, decoration, or qualification in a way that created a tangible benefit or had official implications.
Real-world cases tend to fall into recurring categories. The most common scenario involves a service member claiming an award or decoration during an administrative action, such as an evaluation, promotion packet, or award nomination, where the discrepancy is discovered during review. Another frequent pathway occurs when a displayed ribbon rack, uniform item, or qualification badge appears inconsistent with the service record, prompting questions from peers or supervisors. Some cases originate from social media or public events where a member presents themselves with unauthorized awards during an official ceremony, posterity photo, or community engagement. Less often, allegations arise during a background check or security clearance update when records are cross-referenced.
Investigations typically begin with a supervisor, administrative reviewer, or peer raising a discrepancy. Commands may conduct a preliminary inquiry, often reviewing service records, award orders, and personnel files. If potential criminal misconduct is suspected, cases may be referred to CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS depending on the service. These agencies generally focus on document sourcing, witness interviews, and verification of award authorization through official databases. Commands frequently coordinate closely with law enforcement to ensure accurate record retrieval and to determine whether administrative or criminal action is appropriate.
Article 106a is often charged alongside related offenses to account for different theories of proof, especially where the benefit, intent, or source of misrepresentation could be viewed in multiple ways. Prosecutors may charge overlapping articles to address both the false representation itself and any administrative or tangible benefits gained. The trend is toward narrow, fact-specific charging based on documentation inconsistencies rather than broad accusations. Charge-stacking typically reflects attempts to match each discrete act—such as uniform wear, written statements, and submissions—to its corresponding statutory element.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 106a: Stolen Valor often turn on the government’s ability to prove each statutory element beyond a reasonable doubt. Litigation commonly centers on the reliability of witness testimony, the interpretation of documentary or digital evidence, and how courts construe specific statutory terms. These cases may also involve examination of the circumstances under which statements were made or representations were allegedly falsified.
Disputes frequently arise over whether the factual record supports each required element of the offense. Litigated issues may include whether the accused actually claimed, possessed, or displayed an award or decoration; whether the representation was materially false; and whether the accused’s conduct met any statutory requirement related to intent or advantage. Contested points often relate to the authenticity of the purported award, the accuracy of personnel records, or the context in which the alleged false representation occurred. Challenges generally focus on evidentiary sufficiency rather than strategic or tactical considerations.
Questions about the accused’s state of mind are common. Disputes may concern whether the statute requires proof of specific intent, knowledge of falsity, or some lesser mental state. Litigation can focus on whether the accused knowingly misrepresented an award, whether any misstatement resulted from mistake or misunderstanding, and whether the government has sufficiently demonstrated the mental element required by the statutory text. Mens rea is often central because it determines how the factfinder evaluates ambiguous statements or inconsistent documentation.
Credibility assessments can significantly affect cases under Article 106a. Witnesses may offer differing accounts regarding statements made by the accused, the appearance of uniforms, or the presence of insignia. Investigators’ interpretations of records or interviews may also be scrutinized. These disputes generally involve assessing consistency, corroboration, and the reliability of testimony without making determinations about ultimate guilt.
Courts frequently address questions related to admissibility of statements, digital files, personnel records, and photographs. Issues may include whether a statement was obtained in compliance with Article 31(b) rights advisements, whether searches of electronic devices were properly authorized, and whether documentary evidence satisfies authentication requirements. Litigants may also contest the relevance or prejudicial effect of certain exhibits.
Ambiguities in statutory language or definitions can generate legal disputes. Courts may need to interpret terms such as “unauthorized,” “representation,” or “decoration,” along with any cross-referenced regulatory provisions. Interpretation questions may arise when determining whether certain insignia or statements fall within the scope of the statute, or how the statute interacts with broader military administrative rules.
Guidance on military impersonation offenses under Article 106
Overview of false official statement allegations often paired with misrepresentation cases
Standards for false identification or pass-related misconduct
Offenses involving obtaining benefits through false pretenses
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may arise from a conviction independently of any sentence imposed by a court-martial. These consequences are triggered by regulations, policies, or laws outside the military justice process and may continue long after the court-martial has concluded.
A conviction under UCMJ Article 106a may influence a commander’s decision to initiate administrative separation. Outcomes can include an other-than-honorable or general discharge, depending on the circumstances. Such a conviction may also affect eligibility for promotion or continued service, particularly for members in competitive fields or positions of trust. For those nearing retirement, the conviction may influence retirement-grade determinations or limit opportunities for continued active or reserve service.
Security clearance adjudicators may consider a Stolen Valor conviction as relevant to judgments about reliability, honesty, and personal conduct. This may affect both the retention of an existing clearance and eligibility for future access to classified information. As many defense-related civilian positions require clearance eligibility, the conviction may also influence post-service employment prospects in government or contractor roles.
Convictions under Article 106a do not typically trigger sex offender registration or similar statutory reporting requirements. Any registration obligation arises under federal or state law, and those laws generally define specific categories of offenses that do not include Stolen Valor-related conduct.
The same conduct that leads to an Article 106a conviction may also violate federal or state false representation or fraud statutes. In such cases, civilian authorities may pursue separate criminal or civil action, depending on jurisdiction and investigative findings.
For non-citizen or naturalized service members, a conviction related to fraudulent representations may raise questions about admissibility or good moral character in certain immigration matters. Any impact depends on federal immigration law and individual case circumstances.
During an investigation under UCMJ Article 106a: Stolen Valor, the decisions made in the initial stages often influence how the case develops long before any charges are preferred. Early legal representation helps ensure that a service member understands the investigative process and how preliminary actions may shape later outcomes.
Military investigators typically begin gathering evidence immediately, including statements, documents, and digital materials. Early legal involvement can affect how this evidence is requested, preserved, or interpreted. Counsel can help ensure that interviews and document submissions occur in a manner consistent with established procedures, reducing the risk of misinterpretation or incomplete context.
Command or law-enforcement personnel may request interviews before a service member fully understands the nature of the allegations or the scope of the investigation. Without guidance, a service member may provide statements that are incomplete, inaccurate, or outside the intended context. This risk is one reason many individuals seek assistance from civilian military defense lawyers during the investigative phase.
Command-directed inquiries and administrative investigations can move forward independently of criminal proceedings. Early participation in these processes affects how findings are developed, which may influence later administrative or judicial decisions.
Choices made early in the investigation—such as consenting to searches, providing statements, or responding to administrative inquiries—can carry lasting consequences. These decisions may affect charging decisions, evidentiary rulings, and the overall trajectory of any subsequent court-martial or administrative action.
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 facing courts-martial, administrative actions, and investigations across all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces. Their attorneys draw on extensive experience in military justice to provide informed guidance and strategic defense in complex and sensitive cases.
If you are facing an allegation under UCMJ Article 106a or are under investigation for related conduct, Gonzalez & Waddington can provide confidential guidance regarding your situation. To discuss your case and explore potential defense strategies, you may contact the firm to request a consultation.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 106a: Stolen Valor cover?
A: Article 106a addresses knowingly wearing, using, or claiming entitlement to military decorations, medals, badges, ribbons, or other insignia without authorization. The article focuses on conduct intended to misrepresent a service member’s qualifications or achievements. It applies to actions that may deceive others about a member’s status or accomplishments and can be enforced in both on_duty and off_duty contexts when the conduct has a clear military connection.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 106a: Stolen Valor?
A: The maximum punishment can include a dishonorable discharge, total forfeiture of pay and allowances, and confinement, depending on the circumstances and whether fraud or intent to obtain something of value is involved. The precise punishment is determined by the severity of the misconduct, the presence of aggravating factors, and the sentencing authority’s findings during a court_martial proceeding.
Q: Can an allegation under this article lead to administrative separation even without a conviction?
A: Yes. Commanders may initiate administrative separation based on substantiated misconduct, even without a court_martial conviction. The threshold for administrative action is lower than for judicial proceedings, and decisions can be based on the overall evidence and the service member’s duty performance. Potential outcomes range from counseling to separation with various characterization levels, depending on service regulations and the nature of the allegation.
Q: Do I need a civilian military defense lawyer for an investigation under this article?
A: Representation by a civilian military defense lawyer is optional but can be helpful in understanding the investigative process, preparing responses, and evaluating potential exposure. Service members are entitled to military defense counsel at no cost once certain actions occur, but civilian counsel may provide additional support or specialized experience. The decision depends on personal preference, case complexity, and the anticipated actions by command or investigators.
Q: Can this be handled without a court-martial, such as through nonjudicial punishment or administrative action?
A: Yes. Commands may address Stolen Valor allegations through nonjudicial punishment, administrative reprimands, or counseling, depending on the seriousness of the conduct and available evidence. These alternatives allow commanders to respond to misconduct when a court_martial is not considered necessary. Outcomes vary by branch and command policy, and service members generally have rights to respond or contest certain actions.
Q: Which agencies typically investigate Stolen Valor allegations?
A: Investigations may involve military law enforcement organizations such as CID, NCIS, or OSI, depending on the service branch. These agencies review documentation, interview witnesses, and examine digital or physical evidence that may show unauthorized wear or false claims. Commands may also conduct preliminary inquiries before referring matters to formal investigators. The scope of the investigation depends on the potential impact of the alleged misconduct.
Q: What types of evidence are commonly reviewed in Stolen Valor cases?
A: Evidence often includes personnel records, award orders, photographs, social media posts, witness statements, and any documents the member presented to support the disputed claim. Investigators look for discrepancies between official records and the decorations or qualifications displayed or asserted. The evaluation focuses on whether the conduct was intentional and whether the member knowingly misrepresented their status or achievements.
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.
