Table Content
Article 108a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice establishes criminal liability for improper conduct involving captured, seized, or abandoned property during military operations. The provision is intended to protect property obtained in the course of hostilities and to preserve proper governmental control over such assets.
The article prohibits the unlawful appropriation, sale, destruction, waste, concealment, or other misuse of captured or abandoned property. It also criminalizes failing to secure or turn over such property when required. The offense applies whether the property is owned by enemy forces, civilians, or any other party encountered during military operations.
Any service member subject to the UCMJ may be charged under Article 108a. The provision applies regardless of rank, duty position, or operational setting. It may also apply during both armed conflict and peacetime contingency operations when property is considered captured or abandoned.
Most violations require proof that the accused acted knowingly and wrongfully. The government must generally show awareness that the property was captured or abandoned and that the conduct was unauthorized. Negligent mishandling alone is not sufficient unless the negligence rises to a level defined as wrongful under military regulations.
Standard UCMJ ancillary liability rules apply to Article 108a offenses. Attempted violations, conspiracies to misuse captured or abandoned property, and aiding or abetting another’s offense may be charged under Articles 80, 81, and 77 respectively. These theories of liability are commonly used when the wrongful act is interrupted or carried out by multiple participants.
To establish guilt under Article 108a, the government must prove each element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements define the required mental state, the prohibited conduct, and the status of the property involved.
The mens rea for Article 108a requires that the accused acted knowingly with respect to both the nature of the property and the unauthorized character of the conduct. Proof that the accused reasonably should have known of the property’s captured or abandoned status may satisfy the knowledge requirement when specified in the charge.
The actus reus consists of any unauthorized handling, misuse, destruction, or failure to safeguard property taken or left in the context of military operations. The prohibited conduct includes both affirmative acts, such as appropriation or sale, and omissions, such as failing to secure property when required.
“Captured or abandoned property” refers to property taken, seized, or left behind during military operations and subject to military control or disposition. Establishing this status is essential, as the offense applies only to property falling within this statutory category.
Punishment for violations of Article 108a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Captured or Abandoned Property Offenses, depends on the date the alleged misconduct occurred. Offenses committed before 27 December 2023 are subject to the traditional “maximum punishment” model, while offenses committed on or after that date are sentenced under the updated tiered sentencing system implemented by Executive Order in accordance with the Military Justice Act reforms.
The maximum authorized punishment for Article 108a offenses committed before 27 December 2023 is determined by the version of the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) in effect at the time of the accused conduct. Article 108a contains multiple theories of liability, and the maximum punishments differ depending on the specific subsection charged. Under the pre_December 2023 system, authorized punishments may include:
Because the exact confinement limits for Article 108a vary by subsection and are set by the President in the MCM, the controlling source for precise values is the specific edition of the MCM corresponding to the date of offense.
For offenses occurring on or after 27 December 2023, Article 108a is sentenced under the updated sentencing_category system. Each UCMJ offense is assigned to a sentencing category that specifies an authorized confinement range. Article 108a is assigned to the category designated for property_related offenses, and the confinement range is the one associated with that category in the current MCM.
The post_2023 sentencing model differs from the prior system by replacing offense_specific maximums with standardized confinement ranges tied to sentencing categories. These categories establish structured limits rather than individualized maximums for each offense, but the authority to adjudge punitive separations and financial penalties remains consistent with earlier practice.
Charging decisions under Article 108a generally reflect the specific fact pattern uncovered during an investigation, the availability of corroborating evidence, and the command’s assessment of the service member’s duties and access. Cases tend to develop from routine accountability checks or reports of improper handling of non_standard government property rather than from unusual or extreme battlefield scenarios.
In practice, Article 108a charges most often arise when service members are alleged to have taken possession of property believed to be captured, abandoned, or otherwise unclaimed during operations or training events. Common situations include:
Cases usually begin with a report from supply personnel, unit leaders, or peers who notice irregularities in property documentation or possession. Commands often initiate preliminary inquiries or command-directed investigations to clarify the property’s status. When the property is operationally sensitive or the value is significant, military law-enforcement agencies such as CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS typically assume the investigation. These agencies collect statements, verify chain-of-custody requirements, and coordinate with unit supply or intelligence elements to determine how the property should have been processed.
Article 108a charges frequently appear alongside alternative theories of liability, giving prosecutors flexibility depending on how the evidence develops. Overlap with Article 92 and Article 121 is common because the same conduct may violate multiple property-handling rules or suggest differing levels of intent. Charge-stacking occurs primarily to address each discrete aspect of the alleged misconduct—improper possession, failure to report, and misrepresentation in documentation—without relying on a single statutory theory.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 108a often turn on disputes related to proof of specific statutory elements, credibility of witnesses, evidentiary rulings, and interpretation of statutory language. Because these cases can involve complex factual settings and overlapping regulatory requirements, litigation frequently centers on narrow questions of what the government must prove and whether its evidence satisfies those requirements.
Contested issues often arise over whether the government has met its burden of proof for one or more of the enumerated elements of Article 108a. These may include disputes over whether property was “captured” or “abandoned” within the meaning of the statute, whether the accused exercised control or possession, and whether any alleged conduct constituted appropriation, concealment, sale, or destruction. Litigated questions commonly involve:
Mens rea is frequently a central point of litigation. The government must generally show that the accused acted with the requisite knowledge or intent concerning the status of the property and the nature of their actions. Disputes may arise regarding:
These issues often depend on circumstantial evidence, making the interpretation of actions and surrounding context significant.
Witness credibility can be a critical factor, particularly when cases rely on testimony from service members who discovered property, reported misconduct, or participated in recovery operations. Disputes may also arise regarding the reliability of inventory records, chain-of-custody documentation, and investigator observations. Resolving such issues typically requires fact-finders to assess the coherence and consistency of competing accounts without presuming guilt or innocence.
Evidentiary disputes in Article 108a cases often concern the admissibility of statements, searches of personal areas or electronic devices, and seizure of alleged property. Litigated issues may include:
Ambiguities in the statutory text, definitions of “captured” or “abandoned,” and cross-referenced military regulations can lead to interpretive disputes. Courts may address questions about how broadly or narrowly to construe certain terms and how regulatory provisions interact with the punitive article. These issues can influence what the government must prove and how fact-finders evaluate the evidence.
Offenses involving other forms of military property under Article 108
Destruction of non-military property under Article 109
Larceny and wrongful appropriation frequently associated with property misuse
False official statements often charged when reporting or handling property
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may result from a conviction independently of any court-martial sentence. These outcomes arise through military regulations, federal law, or external agencies and can continue to affect a service member after the judicial process concludes.
A conviction under UCMJ Article 108a, which involves the wrongful handling of captured or abandoned property, may influence multiple administrative determinations. Command authorities may initiate separation proceedings, and the resulting discharge characterization can range from honorable to other than honorable depending on the case. A conviction may also affect eligibility for reenlistment, limit opportunities for promotion, or interrupt a career progression timeline. For service members nearing retirement, administrative actions could affect retirement eligibility or the characterization of retired status.
Misconduct involving property accountability can raise concerns related to judgment, reliability, and adherence to security standards. As a result, a conviction may lead to suspension, revocation, or denial of a security clearance. Loss of clearance can restrict access to classified duties and significantly limit both military and post-service employment options, especially in fields that rely on clearance status or trust-related responsibilities.
Article 108a offenses generally do not trigger sex offender registration or similar statutory reporting requirements. Any registration obligation would depend on the specific conduct involved and applicable federal or state law, which governs such determinations independently of the UCMJ conviction itself.
Certain conduct underlying an Article 108a conviction may also violate federal or state property or theft statutes. In such situations, civilian authorities retain discretion to pursue separate criminal charges or civil claims, particularly in cases involving significant property loss or violations of federal property laws.
For non-citizen service members, a conviction may influence immigration status, admissibility, or eligibility for certain naturalization benefits. Effects depend on the nature of the offense and applicable immigration regulations.
During investigations into potential violations of UCMJ Article 108a, the decisions a service member makes in the initial stages can influence the direction and outcome of the case long before any charges are preferred. Early legal representation helps ensure that these decisions are informed and aligned with established legal protections and procedures.
Military investigators typically collect physical items, documents, digital records, and witness statements early in the process. Once gathered, this evidence often forms the foundation of the investigative narrative. Early legal involvement can help clarify the context of collected materials, address inaccuracies, and ensure that documentation or digital data is preserved and interpreted within appropriate legal boundaries.
Service members may be interviewed by command personnel or law-enforcement officials before fully understanding the allegations or their rights. Statements made during these interviews can become central pieces of evidence. Legal counsel can help a service member understand the scope of questioning, potential implications, and available protections, reducing the risk of misunderstandings or incomplete responses.
Administrative inquiries and command-directed investigations can proceed independently from criminal processes. Early decisions within these channels—sometimes made without full awareness of legal considerations—can influence later disciplinary or criminal actions. Guidance from military defense counsel, including civilian military defense lawyers, supports consistency across overlapping inquiries.
Choices made early in the investigation, such as providing statements, consenting to searches, or responding to administrative requests, can have long-term effects. These initial actions may shape evidentiary assessments, procedural options, and the trajectory of any subsequent court-martial or administrative proceedings.
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 handles a wide range of military criminal cases worldwide, including complex matters involving property, theft, and battlefield conduct. With extensive experience navigating military courts and investigative processes, the firm provides defense representation to service members from all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces.
If you are facing allegations related to UCMJ Article 108a, Gonzalez & Waddington can explain your options and provide representation tailored to your situation. Contact the firm to discuss your case in a confidential consultation.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 108a: Captured or Abandoned Property Offenses cover?
A: Article 108a addresses misconduct involving the wrongful taking, selling, damaging, or failure to safeguard captured, abandoned, or enemy property during military operations. The article focuses on protecting operational integrity and ensuring that service members handle such property according to established procedures. Violations can involve intentional misuse or negligent handling, depending on the circumstances. The purpose of the article is to maintain accountability, protect mission resources, and prevent personal gain from captured or abandoned items.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 108a: Captured or Abandoned Property Offenses?
A: Maximum punishment varies based on the specific conduct, the value of the property involved, and whether the actions were intentional or negligent. Penalties may include reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay, confinement, or a punitive discharge if tried at a court-martial. The precise maximum punishment is determined by the Manual for Courts-Martial, which outlines sentencing limits for each type of offense under this article.
Q: Can an allegation under this article lead to administrative separation even without a conviction?
A: Yes. Commanders may initiate administrative separation proceedings based on substantiated misconduct, regardless of whether a court-martial conviction occurs. Administrative actions operate under a lower evidentiary threshold than criminal proceedings. If the command determines that the conduct affects good order, discipline, or suitability for continued service, administrative separation may be considered. The outcome depends on the evidence, service record, and discretion of the command.
Q: Do I need a civilian military defense lawyer for an investigation under this article?
A: Service members are entitled to military defense counsel at no cost during criminal investigations or court-martial proceedings. Some individuals choose to hire civilian counsel for additional support, but doing so is optional. A civilian attorney may provide independent guidance and assist with responding to investigatory interviews or administrative actions. The decision depends on the complexity of the case, potential consequences, and personal preference.
Q: Can this be handled without a court-martial, such as through administrative action or nonjudicial punishment?
A: Yes. Allegations under Article 108a may be resolved through nonjudicial punishment, administrative counseling, reprimands, or other command-level actions when the circumstances do not warrant court-martial. Commanders determine the appropriate forum based on the severity of the conduct, available evidence, and the service member’s duty performance. Administrative outcomes typically involve lower levels of punishment but may still carry career implications.
Q: Which agencies typically investigate allegations involving captured or abandoned property?
A: Investigations often involve military law enforcement organizations such as the Army CID, Air Force OSI, or NCIS, depending on the branch of service. These agencies examine whether property was improperly taken, sold, damaged, or mishandled. They may collect witness statements, review operational logs, and analyze chain-of-custody documentation. The scope of the investigation depends on the value of the property and the context in which the alleged misconduct occurred.
Q: What types of evidence are commonly reviewed in an Article 108a inquiry?
A: Evidence may include photos or videos of the property, operational reports, accountability records, witness statements, and digital communications. Investigators also review policies governing property handling to determine whether the service member followed required procedures. The focus is on establishing ownership, condition, and chain of custody, along with showing whether the actions were intentional or negligent. The specific evidence depends on the nature of the incident and operational context.
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.
