Table Content
Article 115 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice addresses the wrongful communication of threats by servicemembers. The provision focuses on statements or conduct that convey an intent to injure another person, damage property, or commit an offense likely to cause alarm or disrupt good order and discipline. The analysis centers on the nature of the threat, the surrounding circumstances, and the speaker’s state of mind.
A violation occurs when a servicemember wrongfully communicates a threat to injure another individual, damage property, or perform an act of violence or harm. The communication may be oral, written, or conveyed through gestures or electronic means. The threat must be more than idle or jesting remarks and must be made under circumstances that a reasonable person would interpret as expressing a genuine intent to cause harm.
Article 115 applies to all persons subject to the UCMJ, including active-duty servicemembers, reservists on orders, and others legally falling under military jurisdiction. It encompasses threats made to military personnel, civilians, or institutions. The recipient of the threat need not be subject to the UCMJ.
The offense generally requires that the accused intentionally or knowingly communicated the threatening statement or gesture. The government must show that the accused understood the nature of the communication and intended it to be received as a threat. Negligent or accidental statements typically do not satisfy the mental state requirement.
Attempt liability is uncommon because the offense is complete upon communication of the threat itself. Conspiracy charges may arise when two or more persons agree to issue or carry out a threat as part of a coordinated plan. Accomplice liability may apply when an individual assists, encourages, or directs another to communicate a prohibited threat.
The government must prove each element of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt to establish that an accused service member wrongfully communicated a threat within the meaning of Article 115 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The required mens rea generally requires that the accused intentionally used language that a reasonable person would understand as expressing a genuine intent to inflict harm. The prosecution must show more than an accidental or careless utterance; the communication must be deliberate.
The actus reus consists of the actual communication—verbal, written, or conveyed by other expressive means—of language amounting to a threat. The threat need not be carried out, and actual capability to execute the threat is not required.
Key statutory terms include “present determination or intent,” which refers to an expression of intent to cause harm that is more than idle or joking language. The term “wrongful” excludes communications made in jest, hyperbole, or legitimate military or professional contexts where no true threat is intended.
Punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) depends on the date of the alleged offense. Offenses committed before December 27, 2023 are sentenced under the traditional maximum_punishment model, while offenses committed on or after that date are sentenced under the updated, category_based framework established by the Military Justice Act amendments.
For UCMJ Article 115 (Communicating Threats), the Manual for Courts_Martial (MCM) prescribes a fixed maximum punishment under the pre_December 27, 2023 system. The maximum authorized punishment includes:
Under this model, the sentencing authority could impose any lawful sentence up to the maximum, with no prescribed minimums.
For offenses occurring on or after December 27, 2023, Article 115 (Communicating Threats) falls within the standardized sentencing categories established in the revised MCM. The offense is assigned to a category that prescribes a confinement range and identifies available punitive discharges.
Under the category_based system, sentencing authorities apply a structured confinement range associated with the assigned category rather than relying on the single maximum_punishment figure used previously. Categories group offenses of comparable seriousness and provide standardized upper limits on confinement. While punitive discharges, reductions, and forfeitures remain available, the principal distinction is that confinement is now governed by predefined ranges rather than an individualized maximum for each offense.
Charging decisions for communicating threats typically hinge on the specific facts, the source of the allegation, the context in which the words or actions occurred, and the commander’s assessment of the impact on good order and discipline. Investigators and commanders often distinguish between impulsive statements, sustained threatening behavior, and threats tied to other misconduct when determining whether to prefer charges under Article 115.
Allegations under Article 115 frequently arise from interpersonal conflicts where statements are perceived as threatening by another service member or by a civilian within military jurisdiction. Common scenarios include:
Most cases begin with a complaint to a supervisor, first sergeant, or command duty representative. Commanders may initiate a preliminary inquiry to document statements and collect immediate evidence such as texts or witness accounts. When the allegation suggests violence, weapons involvement, or broader misconduct, military law enforcement—CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS—typically conducts formal interviews, collects digital evidence, and reviews contextual communications. In sensitive or higher-risk cases, law enforcement may coordinate with behavioral health personnel or civilian authorities.
Prosecutors frequently charge Article 115 alongside other articles to account for multiple theories of culpability, especially when the facts include both threatening statements and other misconduct. Charge-stacking often reflects the overlapping nature of speech-related offenses, digital communication issues, and accompanying violations such as disobedience or assault. Overlap also occurs where the same conduct could fit within Article 115, Article 117, or Article 134, allowing the fact-finder to determine the most fitting characterization based on evidence presented.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 115, which addresses the communication of threats, often turn on whether the government can establish each required element through admissible evidence. Litigation commonly centers on how the facts fit the statutory framework, the reliability of testimony, the admissibility of statements or digital records, and how the statutory text should be interpreted in light of precedent.
Disputes frequently arise regarding whether the government has satisfied one or more elements of the offense. Litigants often focus on:
These issues often require close examination of the circumstances surrounding the alleged communication, including tone, medium, and situational context.
Questions related to mental state are contested in many Article 115 cases. Courts may need to determine:
Because threats often depend on contextual meaning, mens rea inquiries typically involve both subjective intent and objective interpretation.
Credibility assessments frequently influence the resolution of Article 115 allegations. Decision-makers may consider:
These disputes often affect how fact-finders interpret the alleged threat and the surrounding circumstances.
Evidentiary rulings commonly involve:
Litigation may also involve interpreting statutory language or related provisions. Courts may examine:
These interpretive issues often shape how elements are applied in individual cases.
Disorderly or disruptive conduct under Article 134, often associated with threatening statements
Reckless endangerment provisions that relate to dangerous or intimidating behavior
Assault and aggravated assault charges that frequently accompany communicated threats
Obstruction of justice, which can arise when threats are used to influence statements or actions
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may arise separately from any sentence imposed by a court-martial. These consequences do not depend on confinement, reduction in grade, or punitive discharge but may result from military regulations, federal or state law, or professional standards applied after a conviction under UCMJ Article 115 for communicating threats.
A conviction for communicating threats may influence several administrative or career-related determinations. Command authorities may initiate administrative separation processing, and the characterization of discharge may be affected by the nature of the offense. Promotion boards may consider the conviction when assessing suitability for advancement, and a member close to retirement may face delays or barriers to completing the required service. Future opportunities for continued military service, reenlistment, or commissioning may also be limited based on service policies addressing conduct and reliability.
Because communicating threats can raise concerns about judgment, reliability, or emotional stability, a conviction may lead to a review of an individual’s security clearance eligibility. This may affect access to classified information or assignment to sensitive duties. Loss or suspension of clearance can also influence post-service employment in fields that require federal background investigations or clearance reciprocity.
Convictions under Article 115 typically do not trigger sex offender registration. However, certain underlying conduct, if present, could give rise to other reporting obligations depending on federal and state requirements. Registration rules are governed by civilian jurisdictions, which determine applicability based on statutory definitions and offense elements.
The same conduct underlying an Article 115 conviction may, in some cases, overlap with state or federal offenses such as assault, stalking, or making terroristic threats. Civil liability, such as claims for harassment or emotional distress, may also arise depending on the circumstances.
For non-citizen service members, certain convictions may affect immigration status, admissibility, or naturalization eligibility. Effects vary based on the offense details and applicable immigration statutes, which evaluate factors such as threats, violence, or intent.
During the investigative phase of a UCMJ Article 115 case, key decisions occur before any formal charges are preferred. How a service member responds to early inquiries, what information is provided, and how evidence is handled often shapes the direction and scope of the investigation. Early legal representation, whether through appointed counsel or a civilian military defense lawyer, helps ensure that these foundational steps are managed with a clear understanding of the process.
Military investigators typically begin gathering statements, digital records, and physical materials as soon as an allegation is reported. Early legal involvement can influence how a service member’s statements are documented, how digital devices are handled, and whether certain evidence is preserved accurately. Counsel can also help clarify the relevance and context of information collected during this phase.
Initial interviews by command or law-enforcement personnel may occur before a service member fully understands the specific allegations or their rights under Article 31(b). Without guidance, they may provide incomplete or unintended information. Early representation helps ensure that interviews proceed with proper advisement and awareness of the investigative scope.
Command-directed inquiries, such as AR 15-6 investigations, can move forward independent of criminal proceedings. Decisions made at this stage—such as findings, recommendations, or administrative annotations—may affect later actions even if criminal charges are not pursued.
Choices made early in the process, including providing statements or consenting to searches, can influence court-martial strategies, administrative actions, and evidentiary considerations. These decisions often remain part of the case record and may shape outcomes throughout the entire legal process.
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 in military courts and administrative proceedings, including complex and sensitive allegations that can impact a service member’s career, reputation, and future. Their attorneys have extensive experience navigating the military justice system and advising clients through each stage of the process.
If you are facing allegations under UCMJ Article 115 or believe an investigation may be underway, Gonzalez & Waddington can discuss your situation and help you understand your options. Contact the firm to request a confidential consultation and receive guidance tailored to your circumstances.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 115: Communicating Threats cover?
A: Article 115 addresses situations where a service member communicates threats of injury, death, or damage to property with intent to harm, intimidate, or influence another person. The offense can apply to verbal, written, electronic, or indirect communications. Investigators typically examine the intent behind the statement, the context in which it was made, and whether a reasonable person would interpret the communication as a genuine threat rather than a joke, exaggeration, or misunderstanding.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 115: Communicating Threats?
A: The maximum punishment depends on the nature and severity of the threat, as well as any surrounding circumstances. Penalties can include confinement, reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay, and a punitive discharge if the offense is tried at a general or special court-martial. Commanders and legal authorities evaluate the circumstances of each case, including intent, context, and impact, when determining the potential level of punishment and whether referral to court-martial is appropriate.
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 if the service member is not convicted at court-martial. Administrative processes rely on a lower standard of proof and can be triggered by evidence indicating that the member’s conduct affected good order, discipline, or mission readiness. Outcomes vary, and the service member is generally afforded an opportunity to respond within the applicable administrative procedures and timelines.
Q: Do I need a civilian military defense lawyer for an investigation under this article?
A: A service member has the right to consult with appointed military defense counsel at no cost and may choose to hire a civilian military defense lawyer if preferred. Whether to retain civilian counsel is a personal decision based on the complexity of the case, the member’s comfort level, and the potential consequences. Access to legal advice early in the process can help the member understand rights, potential outcomes, and investigative procedures.
Q: Can this be handled without a court-martial, such as through administrative action or nonjudicial punishment?
A: Yes. Depending on the severity of the alleged threat and the surrounding facts, commanders may address the matter through nonjudicial punishment, administrative counseling, or other corrective actions instead of court-martial. These options may be used when the conduct does not warrant criminal prosecution or when the command believes administrative measures provide an appropriate response. The specific approach depends on the evidence, intent, and impact on unit discipline.
Q: What types of evidence are typically reviewed in a communicating-threats investigation?
A: Investigators generally examine statements from witnesses, text messages, emails, social media posts, and any recorded communications. They may also review contextual information, such as prior interactions between the involved parties or circumstances that could affect interpretation of the statement. The focus is on determining intent, credibility, and whether a reasonable person would view the communication as a genuine threat rather than sarcasm, frustration, or an offhand remark.
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.
