Table Content
Article 108 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice addresses wrongful conduct involving property owned, used, or entrusted to the armed forces. The article establishes criminal liability for damaging, destroying, losing, selling, or otherwise misusing military property. It applies whether the property is real or personal, and whether the accused had direct possession or broader custodial responsibility.
Article 108 criminalizes a range of acts that adversely affect military property. The statute covers willful, intentional, or negligent conduct depending on the subsection and the specific circumstances. Property may be considered military property even if temporarily in civilian hands, so long as it remains under military ownership or control.
Common forms of prohibited conduct include:
Any service member subject to the UCMJ may be charged under Article 108. Liability does not depend on rank or specific duty position, though custodial roles can influence the degree of responsibility. Civilians subject to the UCMJ under limited statutory circumstances may also fall within its reach.
The required mental state varies by form of misconduct. Some violations require proof of willfulness or wrongful intent, such as intentional destruction or sale of property. Other parts permit liability based on simple negligence when the accused’s carelessness results in loss or damage.
Attempt, conspiracy, and aiding-and-abetting doctrines may apply through Articles 80, 81, and 77 when a service member assists, agrees to commit, or takes steps toward a prohibited property offense. These theories allow prosecution even if the underlying offense is not completed. Liability may extend to any participant whose conduct substantially contributes to the wrongful act.
The government must prove every element of an Article 108 offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Each charged theory—damage, destruction, loss, sale, or wrongful disposition of military property—requires proof of specific objective conduct and a culpable mental state tied to the accused’s relationship to U.S. military property.
The mens rea differs by specification. “Willfully” requires intentional misconduct with knowledge of the property’s military character. “Knowingly” requires awareness of the nature of the act, even if not accompanied by a specific intent to harm government interests. “Neglect” denotes a culpably careless failure to exercise the care a reasonably prudent servicemember would under similar circumstances.
The actus reus may consist of a positive act—such as selling or destroying property—or an omission, such as negligent loss or failure to safeguard government equipment. Actual physical damage is required for damaging or destroying specifications; for sale or wrongful disposition, the prohibited conduct is the unauthorized transfer or handling of property.
“Military property of the United States” includes all property owned, held, or used by the armed forces, regardless of whether it is issued to an individual, and its characterization is central to establishing federal military ownership.
Punishment under Article 108, UCMJ depends on the date of the alleged offense. Offenses committed before December 27, 2023 are governed by the traditional maximum_punishment model in the Manual for Courts_Martial (MCM). Offenses committed on or after December 27, 2023 fall under the standardized sentencing_parameter system enacted by the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act.
Under the pre_December 27, 2023 framework, maximum punishments were offense_specific and tied to the type of military property involved and the nature of the conduct (sale, wrongful disposition, damage, destruction, or loss). Common maximum punishments included:
No mandatory minimum sentences applied under Article 108. Maximum punishments operated as caps but did not require imposition of any particular punitive discharge or term of confinement.
For offenses committed on or after December 27, 2023, Article 108 sentencing is governed by the standardized sentencing_parameter system in Appendix 12 of the MCM. Each subsection of Article 108 is assigned a sentencing category that establishes an authorized confinement range. The specific category varies by the type of conduct and property involved (e.g., sale, damage, loss; U.S. military property versus other property).
The new sentencing categories standardize confinement ranges across offenses and eliminate the previous system of single, offense_specific maximum punishments, while still allowing the court_martial to impose any lawful punitive discharge and financial penalties authorized for the assigned category.
Charging decisions under Article 108 typically follow the factual development of a case, the quality of the investigative record, and the command’s assessment of duty impact and accountability concerns. Prosecutors generally shape charges around concrete, documented actions involving government property rather than theoretical possibilities, and the charging profile usually reflects how clearly investigators can trace loss, damage, disposal, or misuse to a service member’s conduct.
Article 108 charges most often arise from routine operational or workplace incidents where military property is mishandled, lost, or intentionally misused. Frequent scenarios include:
Cases typically begin with a supply discrepancy, an equipment malfunction report, or an abnormal finding during periodic inventories. Commands often initiate preliminary inquiries or command-directed investigations to determine whether the issue stems from simple error or potential misconduct. When loss value, sensitivity of equipment, or suspected intent rises above a threshold, cases are referred to CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS for formal investigation. These agencies gather maintenance records, accountability logs, digital tracking data, and witness statements to establish timelines and responsibility.
Article 108 often appears in charge sheets alongside alternative theories to capture negligence, wrongful intent, or both. Prosecutors may stack charges when conduct touches multiple accountability rules or when property damage accompanies related misconduct. Overlap with Article 92 and Article 121 is routine, reflecting the intersection between property control, regulatory compliance, and potential theft. Overall, charging patterns focus on documenting the chain of custody, value, and the member’s specific actions to create a coherent narrative of property misuse or loss.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 108 often hinge on whether the government has produced sufficient, admissible evidence to establish each required element of the offense. Disputes typically center on the quality of proof, the reliability of witnesses, the scope of permissible evidence, and the interpretation of statutory terms that define the conduct at issue.
Cases frequently involve contention over whether the government has met its burden on one or more statutory elements, such as establishing that the property was military property, that the accused had a requisite connection to the property, or that the alleged conduct caused a loss, damage, destruction, sale, or wrongful disposition. These disputes often relate to:
Such issues generally raise questions about the sufficiency and reliability of documentary records, chain-of-custody assertions, and expert or technical evidence.
Disagreements about mental state commonly arise because Article 108 can encompass a range of culpability levels, depending on the charged subsection. Litigation often focuses on whether the accused acted knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, or whether the conduct lacked the required mental state altogether. Contested issues may include:
Fact-finders frequently must resolve competing accounts from witnesses, supervisors, investigators, or subject-matter experts. Conflicts may concern the condition of the property, the context of the accused’s actions, or the accuracy of contemporaneous reports. Credibility assessments can shape how the fact-finder interprets ambiguous conduct or evaluates whether the government has established required elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Evidentiary disputes often arise concerning the admissibility of statements made during command inquiries, investigative interviews, or routine administrative checks. Issues may include the scope of consent searches, the reasonableness of inspections, and the handling of digital records or maintenance logs. Questions about authentication, relevance, and potential prejudice frequently influence what evidence may be considered and how it may be weighed.
Litigation may also involve interpreting statutory terms such as “military property,” “wrongful disposition,” or “damage,” especially where regulations or cross-referenced provisions use overlapping or technical terminology. Ambiguities in statutory language, definitional scope, or legislative context can lead to disputes over how broadly or narrowly particular provisions should be applied in a given case.
False official statements that often accompany property-related misconduct
Offenses involving captured or abandoned property, closely related to military property rules
Destruction of non-military property as a neighboring property offense
Larceny and wrongful appropriation charges commonly paired with property damage allegations
Receiving or concealing stolen property frequently arising in property crime cases
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may arise from a conviction independent of the sentence adjudged at court_martial. These consequences are typically imposed through separate regulatory or statutory processes and can affect a service member’s career, benefits, and post-service life.
A conviction under UCMJ Article 108 may prompt administrative review of a service member’s continued suitability for military service. Possible outcomes include administrative separation, which may result in a discharge characterization less favorable than honorable. A conviction can also adversely affect promotion eligibility, competitiveness for retention boards, and the ability to reenlist. For members nearing retirement eligibility, the case may influence determinations related to retirement grade or continuation of service. In some situations, the conviction may also limit opportunities for special duties or assignments that require a strong record of trust and reliability.
Damage, loss, or misuse of military property may raise concerns about judgment, reliability, or adherence to regulations, which can affect a service member’s eligibility to obtain or maintain a security clearance. Loss of a clearance may restrict access to classified duties during service and could affect post_military employment in sectors that rely on clearance eligibility, such as defense contracting or certain federal positions.
Convictions under Article 108 generally do not trigger sex offender registration or similar statutory registration schemes. However, reporting obligations, if any, are governed by federal and state law, and certain jurisdictions may impose administrative reporting requirements based on the specific circumstances of an offense.
The underlying conduct may also constitute an offense under federal or state law, potentially exposing the service member to separate civilian investigation or prosecution. In some cases, financial losses associated with property offenses may lead to civil claims for reimbursement or damages.
For non_citizen service members, certain convictions may affect immigration status, admissibility, or future applications for naturalization. Effects depend on the nature of the offense and how it is classified under immigration law, which evaluates conduct independently of the military justice system.
During the investigative phase of a potential UCMJ Article 108 case, decisions made by the service member and investigators often shape the course of the matter long before any charges are preferred. Early legal representation helps ensure that the service member understands the processes and potential implications of investigative actions.
Military investigators typically gather statements, documentation, maintenance records, and digital materials at the outset of an inquiry. Early legal involvement can help clarify how evidence is collected, ensure that statements are accurately recorded, and address concerns about the preservation or interpretation of digital or physical evidence. An attorney can also help assess whether requests for access or consent align with investigative rules.
Interviews by command or law-enforcement personnel often occur before a service member fully understands the nature of the allegations or the scope of the investigation. Without legal guidance, a service member may provide incomplete or inaccurate information, unknowingly waive rights, or misinterpret the intent of questioning. Even well-intentioned statements can complicate later defenses.
Command-directed investigations, such as AR 15-6 or similar service-specific inquiries, may proceed independently of any criminal process. Decisions made during these administrative reviews—such as written responses or document submissions—can influence parallel or subsequent actions, including potential disciplinary measures.
Early choices regarding statements, consent to searches, or engagement with administrative inquiries can have effects throughout the life of a case. These decisions may influence evidence admissibility, command perceptions, or the scope of later proceedings. Consulting with qualified counsel, including civilian military defense lawyers, can help a service member navigate these early stages with a full understanding of potential long-term implications.
Gonzalez & Waddington is a civilian military defense law firm that concentrates its practice on representing service members facing allegations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The firm handles cases across all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces and assists clients worldwide, providing representation in complex and high-stakes military justice matters.
If you are facing issues connected to UCMJ Article 108 or have questions about your rights, Gonzalez & Waddington is available to discuss your situation. Contact the firm to schedule a consultation and learn more about the representation they provide in military justice cases.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 108: Military Property Offenses cover?
A: Article 108 addresses the wrongful sale, damage, destruction, loss, or disposal of military property belonging to the United States. The article applies whether the conduct is intentional, negligent, or unauthorized, and it includes both government-issued equipment and certain items under military control. The focus is on protecting operational readiness and federal property, and violations may be evaluated based on the nature of the conduct, the value of the property, and any impact on military operations.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 108: Military Property Offenses?
A: The possible punishment for a violation of Article 108 varies based on the specific conduct and the value or type of property involved. Maximum penalties may include confinement, forfeitures, reduction in grade, fines, or a punitive discharge. When damage or loss involves higher-value property or circumstances suggesting intentional misconduct, authorized punishments may be more severe. The sentencing authority determines consequences based on the facts of the case and applicable sentencing rules.
Q: Can an allegation under this article lead to administrative separation even without a conviction?
A: Yes. Commands may initiate administrative separation proceedings based on substantiated misconduct, patterns of behavior, or other grounds, even when the allegation does not result in a conviction at court-martial. Administrative actions operate under a different standard of proof and may proceed independently of criminal disposition. Service members may have an opportunity to respond or provide evidence during the administrative process, depending on the characterization of service under consideration.
Q: Do I need a civilian military defense lawyer for an investigation under this article?
A: Service members have the right to consult with qualified military defense counsel when facing an investigation or potential action under Article 108. Some individuals choose to seek additional assistance from a civilian military defense attorney, who is independent of the command. Whether to hire civilian counsel is a personal decision based on the circumstances, potential consequences, and desired level of representation. Both civilian and military attorneys may help clarify procedures and available options.
Q: Can an Article 108 case be handled without a court-martial?
A: Yes. Commands may address Article 108 allegations through nonjudicial punishment, administrative actions, or counseling measures when the circumstances do not warrant court-martial referral. The chosen approach depends on factors such as the seriousness of the conduct, the value of the property involved, and the service member’s record. Each option has different procedures and potential outcomes, and the command’s legal advisors typically evaluate the available paths before determining how to proceed.
Q: Which agencies typically investigate suspected violations of Article 108?
A: Investigations may be conducted by military law enforcement agencies such as CID, NCIS, or OSI, depending on the service branch. In some cases, unit-level inquiries or command-directed investigations may be initiated to gather preliminary facts. The investigating agency assesses the circumstances surrounding the alleged loss, damage, or misuse of property, interviews witnesses, and reviews documentation. The outcome of the investigation helps the command determine whether further action is appropriate.
Q: What types of evidence are commonly used in Article 108 cases?
A: Evidence may include property records, maintenance documents, photographs, supply inventories, witness statements, and digital data related to equipment accountability. Investigators may also review logs, duty assignments, and any communications concerning the handling or storage of the property. The goal is to establish whether the service member’s actions were unauthorized, negligent, or intentional. The specific evidence considered varies by case and is assessed in the context of applicable legal standards.
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.
