UCMJ Article 108: Military Property Offenses

Article 108, UCMJ — Military Property Offenses

Article 108, UCMJ, criminalizes the wrongful damage, destruction, loss, sale, or disposition of military property owned or controlled by the United States armed forces. The article covers both willful acts—such as selling or destroying government equipment—and negligent conduct that results in loss or damage. Military property includes all items owned, held, or used by the armed forces, whether or not issued to an individual service member.

The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the property was military property of the United States, that the accused damaged, destroyed, lost, sold, or wrongfully disposed of it, and that the accused acted willfully, knowingly, or through neglect as charged. Property value is an additional element when alleged. Gonzalez & Waddington defends service members facing Article 108 charges at every stage, from investigation through court-martial.

Article 108 Penalties and How Gonzalez & Waddington Defends These Cases

Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, an Article 108 conviction for willful destruction or wrongful disposition of military property valued over $1,000 carries up to 10 years' confinement, a dishonorable discharge, total forfeiture of pay and allowances, and reduction to E-1. A conviction also threatens security clearance revocation, loss of retirement eligibility, and involuntary administrative separation.

Michael Waddington, a former Army Senior Defense Counsel, challenges Article 108 charges by scrutinizing the government's property accountability records, attacking the chain of custody for alleged missing or damaged items, and contesting whether the accused's mental state meets the charged standard of willfulness or neglect. Defense counsel also examines whether command investigation procedures were properly followed before charges were preferred.

Gonzalez & Waddington defends service members in military courts worldwide, representing every branch of the armed forces—Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Space Force, Reserve, and National Guard—in the United States and overseas, including Germany, Italy, Japan, and South Korea. The firm handles courts-martial, Article 32 hearings, administrative separation boards, and security clearance matters. Call 1-800-921-8607 to speak with a military defense attorney.

Reviewed by Michael Waddington, Founding Partner · Updated November 9, 2026

Article 108, UCMJ: Military Property Offenses

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.

Prohibited Conduct

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:

• Willfully or wrongfully destroying, damaging, or losing military property
• Selling, disposing of, or misappropriating military property without authority
• Suffering the loss, damage, or destruction of property through negligence
• Knowingly receiving, buying, or concealing property unlawfully disposed of

Persons Subject to the Article

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.

Mental State Requirements

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.

Related Theories of Liability

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.

Aggressive Military Defense Lawyers: Gonzalez & Waddington

Watch the military defense lawyers at Gonzalez & Waddington break down how they defend service members worldwide against UCMJ allegations, CID/NCIS/OSI investigations, court-martials, Article 120 cases, administrative separations, and GOMORs. If you’re under investigation or facing charges, this video explains what your rights are and how experienced civilian military counsel can make the difference.

Elements of UCMJ Article 108: Military Property Offenses

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.

Required Elements

• That the property in question was military property of the United States.
• That the accused damaged, destroyed, lost, sold, or wrongfully disposed of the property.
• That the accused’s act or omission was done willfully, knowingly, or through neglect, as charged.
• That the value of the property or the amount of damage was of a specific amount, if alleged.

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.

Maximum Punishment and Sentencing Exposure

Punishment depends on when the offense was committed. Offenses committed on or before December 27, 2023 are sentenced under the maximum punishments in the Manual for Courts-Martial. Offenses committed after December 27, 2023 are sentenced by a military judge under the sentencing parameters required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 and set out in Executive Order 14103, which added Appendices 12B through 12D to the Manual for Courts-Martial.

Maximum Punishment for Offenses Committed On or Before December 27, 2023

For offenses committed on or before December 27, 2023, the maximum punishments are those set in Part IV of the Manual for Courts-Martial and summarized in its Appendix 12:

• Selling or otherwise disposing of military property, $1,000 or less: bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 1 year, and reduction to E-1.
• Selling or otherwise disposing of military property, more than $1,000 or any firearm or explosive: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 10 years, and reduction to E-1.
• Damaging, destroying, or losing military property through neglect, $1,000 or less: forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 6 months, confinement for 6 months, and reduction to E-1.
• Damaging, destroying, or losing military property through neglect, more than $1,000: bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 1 year, and reduction to E-1.
• Willfully damaging, destroying, or losing military property, $1,000 or less: bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 1 year, and reduction to E-1.
• Willfully damaging, destroying, or losing military property, more than $1,000 or any firearm or explosive: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 10 years, and reduction to E-1.

For commissioned officers, dismissal takes the place of a dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge, and officers cannot be reduced in grade.

Sentencing Parameters for Offenses Committed After December 27, 2023

For offenses committed after December 27, 2023, a military judge sentences the accused within the confinement range for the offense category assigned in Appendix 12C of the Manual for Courts-Martial (2024 ed.). The ranges are set in Appendix 12B (R.C.M. 1002(a)(2)).

• Selling or otherwise disposing of military property, $1,000 or less: Category 1, 0 to 12 months of confinement.
• Selling or otherwise disposing of military property, more than $1,000 or any firearm or explosive: Category 2, 1 to 36 months of confinement.
• Damaging, destroying, or losing military property through neglect, any value: Category 1, 0 to 12 months of confinement.
• Willfully damaging, destroying, or losing military property, $1,000 or less: Category 1, 0 to 12 months of confinement.
• Willfully damaging, destroying, or losing military property, more than $1,000 or any firearm or explosive: Category 2, 1 to 36 months of confinement.

If the maximum confinement for the offense is lower than the top of its category range, the lower maximum controls. The judge may sentence outside a range only after finding specific facts that warrant it and stating them in writing on the record. The parameters govern confinement. A punitive discharge, forfeitures, and reduction in grade remain available up to the maximum punishment for the offense.

How UCMJ Article 108: Military Property Offenses Is Commonly Charged

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.

Common Charging Scenarios

Article 108 charges most often arise from routine operational or workplace incidents where military property is mishandled, lost, or intentionally misused. Frequent scenarios include:

• Improper handling of equipment resulting in breakage or significant repair cost, especially in motor pools, armories, aviation units, and maintenance shops.
• Loss or negligent accountability of serialized or controlled items, such as weapons parts, communications gear, optics, or high-value tools.
• Unauthorized personal use of government vehicles, fuel, or specialized equipment discovered through spot checks, supervisor reports, or tracking systems.
• Disposal or cannibalization of equipment without proper authority, often uncovered during inventories or command supply inspections.
• Intentional destruction or alteration of property, sometimes occurring during barracks incidents or interpersonal disputes.

Frequently Co-Charged Articles

• Article 92 (Failure to Obey Regulations): Paired when misuse or loss stems from violating supply, maintenance, or accountability directives.
• Article 121 (Larceny and Wrongful Appropriation): Added when the conduct suggests theft rather than mere negligence or misuse.
• Article 107 (False Official Statements): Common when a service member provides inaccurate accounts during inventory checks or investigative interviews.
• Article 109 (Destruction of Property Other Than Military Property): Used when both government and personal property are involved in the same incident.

Investigative Pathways

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.

Charging Trends and Overlap

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.

Common Defenses and Contested Legal Issues

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.

Element-Based Challenges

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:

• Identification and classification of the property in question.
• Proof of control, custody, or authority over the property.
• Establishment of a causal link between the accused’s conduct and the alleged harm or disposition.

Such issues generally raise questions about the sufficiency and reliability of documentary records, chain-of-custody assertions, and expert or technical evidence.

Mens Rea and Intent Issues

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:

• The accused’s awareness of property status or regulations governing its use or disposition.
• Whether the alleged conduct reflects intentional wrongdoing versus inadvertent error.
• Interpretation of circumstantial evidence that bears on state of mind.

Credibility and Factual Disputes

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 and Suppression Issues

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.

Statutory Interpretation Issues

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.

Related UCMJ Articles

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 Beyond Court-Martial Punishment

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.

Administrative and Career Consequences

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.

Security Clearance and Professional Impact

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.

Registration and Reporting Requirements

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.

Related Civilian Legal Exposure

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.

Immigration and Citizenship Considerations

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.

Why Early Legal Representation Matters

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.

Timing of Evidence Collection

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.

Risks of Early Interviews

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-Driven Investigations

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.

Long-Term Impact of Early Decisions

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.

Video transcript

Transcript of the video “Article 108 UCMJ Explained | Lost Gear, Damaged Military Property & FLIPL Defense,” with Michael Waddington of Gonzalez & Waddington.

Read the full transcript of this video

Article 108 of the UCMJ makes it a crime to sell or dispose of military property without authority, to willfully damage or destroy it, or to lose, damage, or destroy it through neglect. It covers the soldier who sells night vision goggles online, the Marine who punches a hole in a barracks wall, and the sailor who leaves a sensitive item unsecured and it disappears. I’m Michael Waddington, civilian military defense lawyer and co-founder of Gonzalez & Waddington. Here’s what Article 108 requires, what it carries, and how these cases are defended.

First, what counts as military property. Military property is property owned, held, or used by one of the armed forces that has a uniquely military nature or is used to perform a military function. Weapons, ammunition, optics, night vision devices, radios, body armor, tactical vehicles, aircraft parts, tools, and issued field gear all qualify. Not everything the government owns is military property. Office furniture or a commercial item bought with government money may not be, and that distinction can change the charge.

Second, the three types of offenses. One, selling or otherwise disposing of military property without proper authority. Selling issued gear on eBay, trading it to a surplus store, or giving it to a friend all count. Two, willfully damaging, destroying, or losing military property. This requires intent, like smashing equipment in anger or deliberately destroying something to avoid accountability. Three, through neglect. Damaging, destroying, or losing military property or allowing it to be lost, damaged, or destroyed. Neglect means a failure to use the care a reasonably prudent person would use under the circumstances.

Leaving a rifle unsecured, losing a sensitive item during an exercise, or wrecking a government vehicle through careless driving are classic examples.

Third, the punishment, which depends on intent and value. Unauthorized sale or disposition or willful damage of military property worth $1,000 or less carries up to a year and a bad-conduct discharge. Over $1,000 or any firearm or explosive up to 10 years and a dishonorable discharge. Losing or damaging property through neglect carries much less. Up to 6 months for property worth $1,000 or less and up to a year and a bad-conduct discharge for property worth more or for a firearm or explosive. The threshold was $500 before 2019. Value is usually the item’s price on the government’s records or its fair market value, and that number is often worth challenging.

Fourth, the administrative track. Most lost or damaged equipment never becomes a criminal case. It’s handled through a financial liability investigation, the Army’s FLIPL, or the other services’ equivalents, which decides whether you have to pay for the loss. For simple negligence, the amount you can be charged is generally capped at one month’s base pay. For gross negligence or willful misconduct, it can be the full value. You have the right to respond to a proposed finding of liability and you should because the finding can be used against you later and the money comes out of your pay.

Fifth, the fact patterns. Selling issued equipment or equipment left over after a deployment online. A missing sensitive item after a field exercise followed by a lockdown and a search of the whole unit. A government vehicle accident, damage to barracks rooms, government housing or aircraft, equipment taken home and never returned when someone PCSed or separated. And theft charges under Article 121 combined with Article 108 for the same property.

Sixth, the defenses. Not military property. The item doesn’t meet the definition, or it was personally purchased. Authority. You were told you could keep it, turn it in a certain way, or dispose of it, and there’s a document or a witness to prove it. No neglect. You used reasonable care, and the loss happened anyway through theft by someone else, an accountability system that failed, or circumstances outside your control. Not willful. The damage was an accident. Value. The government’s valuation is wrong, outdated, or ignores depreciation, and moving a case below the $1,000 line changes the maximum. And accountability records themselves: hand receipts, sub-hand receipts, and inventories are often incomplete or wrong.

Seventh, the investigation. Lost sensitive items bring an immediate and intense response. Searches of rooms and vehicles, interviews of everyone in the unit, and sometimes polygraph requests. Those searches have legal limits, and what you say during a frantic search can be used against you. Online sales cases often start with a tip or with federal agents monitoring listings for restricted items, especially night vision devices and weapon parts, which can also raise federal export and firearms issues.

Eighth, what to do. One, if you’re questioned about missing or damaged property, don’t make a statement about fault without a lawyer. Two, preserve hand receipts, inventories, emails, and any authorization to keep or dispose of property. Three, if you’re facing a financial liability investigation, respond in writing on time and get help drafting it. Four, if you have military property you shouldn’t have, talk to a lawyer about how to return it. Don’t just drop it in a turn-in bin.

Five, don’t sell anything military related online unless you’re certain it’s lawful.

At Gonzalez & Waddington, we defend military property cases at court-martial and help clients respond to financial liability findings because the paper trail usually decides who’s responsible.

So, what is Article 108 of the UCMJ? It covers the unauthorized sale, willful damage, or negligent loss of military property with up to 10 years for willful offenses over $1,000 or involving firearms and explosives.

I’m Michael Waddington, a civilian military defense lawyer and co-founder of Gonzalez & Waddington with my law partner Alexandra González-Waddington. For more than 20 years, we’ve defended service members stationed around the world in military investigations, courts-martial, Article 15s, reprimands, and administrative separation boards.

If you’re facing a military property charge, or you’re being held responsible for lost or damaged gear, don’t wait. The decisions you make early can shape the entire case. When the government builds a case, we build your defense. You can learn more at ucmjdefense.com or call 1-800-921-8607 for a free, confidential consultation.

When the command knows you’ve got real defense, the game changes.

About Gonzalez & Waddington

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.

How We Help in UCMJ Article 108: Military Property Offenses

• Defense representation in courts-martial involving allegations of loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful disposition of military property.
• Legal support and guidance during military criminal investigations conducted by CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS.
• Assistance with command-directed inquiries and responses to allegations related to the handling or accountability of military property.
• Representation at administrative separation boards and in matters involving potential career-impacting adverse actions.
• Advising service members on their rights, available defenses, and the legal processes associated with Article 108 allegations.

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.

Frequently Asked Questions

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.

Michael Waddington

A former Army JAG, best-selling author and FIU adjunct law professor, 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

Alexandra González-Waddington is a military and civilian defense attorney with more than 20 years of experience 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.