Table Content
Article 120b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice establishes criminal liability for a range of sexual offenses committed against a child. A “child” is defined as a person who has not attained the age of 16 years. The statute applies across all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces and governs conduct by persons subject to the UCMJ at the time of the offense.
Article 120b prohibits several categories of conduct involving a child, regardless of whether force is used. The statute covers both physical and nonphysical sexual acts when committed for the purpose of sexual gratification, abuse, or exploitation. The specific prohibited behaviors include:
Any service member subject to the UCMJ at the time of the alleged misconduct may be charged. Jurisdiction does not depend on the location of the conduct or the child’s connection to the military. Civilian dependents or contractors are not ordinarily subject to Article 120b unless otherwise brought under UCMJ jurisdiction by statute.
Most offenses under Article 120b require proof that the accused acted knowingly or intentionally. Sexual contact and indecent conduct offenses generally require an intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire. Mistake of age may be available as a defense only where the statute expressly permits it.
Attempted violations of Article 120b are chargeable under Article 80, even if no actual contact occurs. Conspiracy and solicitation may apply when an accused agrees with or encourages another to commit a child sexual offense. Accomplice liability applies under general UCMJ principles for aiding, abetting, or assisting the commission of a prohibited act.
The government must prove each element of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 120b defines several forms of sexual misconduct involving a child, and the specific elements depend on the charged subsection. The following reflects the core elements typically required for the offense of sexual abuse of a child under Article 120b.
The mens rea varies with the nature of the alleged lewd act. For indecent conduct or exposure, the government must typically show that the accused acted with intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify sexual desire. For communication offenses, the intent may involve causing a child to engage in sexual activity or exposing the child to sexual content.
The actus reus encompasses a broad range of prohibited conduct, including intentional sexual contact, indecent exposure to a child, or communicating indecent language to a child with requisite sexual intent. A “lewd act” is defined statutorily and includes both physical and non-physical conduct.
Critical statutory definitions include “child,” meaning a person under 16 years of age, and “sexual contact,” meaning intentional touching of specified body parts with sexual intent. These definitions guide the factfinder in determining whether the government has met its burden.
Punishment under Article 120b, UCMJ (Sexual Abuse of a Child), depends on the date of the alleged offense. Offenses committed before December 27, 2023 are sentenced under the traditional maximum_punishment model, while offenses on or after that date fall under the revised sentencing structure created by the FY22 National Defense Authorization Act.
Under the pre_December 27, 2023 system, Article 120b sexual abuse of a child—defined as engaging in or causing sexual contact with a child—carried the following maximum authorized punishments:
Under the post_December 27, 2023 sentencing system, Article 120b sexual abuse of a child is placed in a defined sentencing category. For sexual abuse of a child involving sexual contact, it falls within Sentencing Category 2.
Under the sentencing_category system, offenses are grouped into statutory categories that establish predetermined confinement ranges. These ranges replace the former model in which the court_martial sentenced up to a single maximum term. The new structure standardizes sentencing across cases by assigning each eligible offense a defined confinement range and allowing the sentencing authority to select a term within that range. Punitive discharges, reductions, and forfeitures continue to be determined separately and are not dictated by the confinement range.
Charging decisions under Article 120b generally reflect the specific fact pattern developed during the initial report and subsequent investigation, as well as the command’s assessment of available evidence and service member accountability. Prosecutors typically align charges with the conduct most clearly supported by witness statements, forensic findings, digital evidence, and admissible admissions.
Most Article 120b cases originate from disclosures made by a child to a parent, caregiver, teacher, or medical professional. In many situations, the first detailed account emerges during a forensic interview at a child-advocacy center. Allegations often involve:
Article 120b cases usually begin with a mandatory report from a parent, school official, medical provider, chaplain, or Family Advocacy representative. Commands typically notify service law-enforcement—CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS—who then conduct formal interviews, execute digital forensics, and coordinate forensic exams when appropriate. Command-directed inquiries may precede or run alongside law-enforcement efforts but generally defer to the criminal investigation once initiated.
Prosecutors frequently include multiple specifications capturing alternative theories such as different forms of sexual contact, exposure, or communication. Overlapping statutes may be charged to reflect distinct aspects of a single course of conduct, particularly when behavior spans both physical and digital domains. Charge-stacking is often used to ensure that at least one specification aligns with the evidence admitted at trial, especially where child testimony may vary in detail over time.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 120b often center on whether the government can prove each required element beyond a reasonable doubt. Litigation commonly focuses on the sufficiency of evidence supporting those elements, the credibility of key witnesses, the admissibility of critical evidence, and the proper interpretation of statutory language governing sexual offenses involving children.
Disputes frequently arise over whether the evidence satisfies one or more statutory elements, such as the age of the alleged victim, the nature of the alleged sexual act or contact, or the accused’s identity and involvement. These challenges often involve questions about:
Although Article 120b contains several strict-liability components—particularly regarding the age of the complainant—other aspects may hinge on the accused’s mental state. Litigation often focuses on whether the government has demonstrated the requisite intent, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence associated with specific subsections. Issues may include:
Because these cases often rely on testimony from child complainants or eyewitnesses, credibility assessments play a significant role. Courts may evaluate factors such as consistency of statements, memory reliability, potential suggestibility, investigative interview techniques, and corroborative or contradictory evidence. These assessments affect how factfinders interpret disputed events without determining guilt or innocence.
Evidence disputes commonly concern the admissibility of statements made by the accused, the conduct of interviews or interrogations, and the handling of searches and seizures. Digital evidence, including messages, images, and metadata, frequently becomes the subject of suppression motions or authenticity challenges. Other issues may involve:
Contested issues often arise from interpreting statutory language, including definitions of sexual acts, age thresholds, and incorporated provisions from other sections of the UCMJ. Ambiguities may lead to disputes over the scope of prohibited conduct, application of cross-referenced definitions, or the relationship between newer statutory amendments and existing judicial interpretations.
General sexual assault provisions under Article 120
Rape of a child elements under Article 120b
Sexual assault of a child under Article 120b
Assault and aggravated assault charges often paired with child sexual offenses
Obstruction allegations that may arise during child abuse investigations
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may arise independently of any court-martial sentence. These consequences often occur through separate military administrative processes, federal or state regulatory schemes, or professional requirements, and they may continue long after the court-martial has concluded.
A conviction under UCMJ Article 120b may lead to significant administrative actions within the military. These can include:
Such a conviction typically raises significant concerns regarding security clearance eligibility. Consequences may include:
Convictions under Article 120b frequently trigger sex offender registration obligations. Registration requirements are governed by federal law, including the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, and by state laws in jurisdictions where the individual resides, works, or attends school. Specific obligations vary and may include periodic updates, residency restrictions, or community notifications.
The underlying conduct may also expose an individual to federal or state criminal prosecution, depending on jurisdiction. Civil liability, such as claims for damages, may also arise independently of the court-martial process.
For non-citizens, a conviction of this nature may affect immigration status. Potential impacts include inadmissibility, deportability, or complications in naturalization proceedings for those seeking U.S. citizenship.
During the investigative phase of an alleged UCMJ Article 120b offense, decisions made by a service member often shape the trajectory of the case before any charges are preferred. Early legal representation helps ensure that actions taken at this stage are informed by an understanding of the processes involved and the potential long-term implications.
Military investigators typically collect statements, digital materials, and physical documents shortly after an allegation is reported. Early legal involvement can clarify how evidence is requested, preserved, or interpreted. Counsel can also advise on the scope of investigative tools such as digital extractions or search authorizations, providing guidance on how a service member’s participation may influence the development of the evidentiary record.
Command or law-enforcement interviews often occur before a service member fully understands the allegations or the extent of the investigation. Without legal guidance, a member may offer incomplete, inaccurate, or unnecessary information. Even minor inconsistencies can later be used to challenge credibility, making it important to understand rights and obligations before engaging in any interview.
Command-directed inquiries or administrative investigations may proceed separately from criminal processes. Actions and statements within these inquiries can inform command decisions on temporary duties, access to facilities, or administrative measures. Early representation, including from a civilian military defense lawyer when appropriate, supports an informed response to these parallel processes.
Consenting to searches, providing statements, or responding to administrative requests can have lasting effects throughout both criminal and administrative proceedings. These early choices may influence charging decisions, litigation strategies, and the interpretation of evidence as the case progresses.
Gonzalez & Waddington is a civilian military defense law firm that concentrates on representing service members facing allegations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The firm is known for handling complex, high-stakes military criminal cases worldwide, providing independent civilian defense counsel to service members in all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces. Their work includes advising clients throughout the military justice process, from investigation through trial and post_trial actions.
If you or a loved one is facing an Article 120b investigation or charge, Gonzalez & Waddington can provide informed legal guidance based on their experience in the military justice system. Contact the firm to discuss your situation and learn more about the legal options available to you.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 120b: Sexual Abuse of a Child cover?
A: Article 120b addresses a range of offenses involving sexual conduct with a child, including sexual acts, sexual contact, and certain forms of lewd conduct. The article applies when the alleged victim is under 16 years old and the accused is subject to the UCMJ. The offense categories vary based on the type of conduct, the age of the child, and whether force, coercion, or other aggravating factors are involved.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 120b: Sexual Abuse of a Child?
A: The maximum punishment depends on the specific subsection charged. Potential penalties may include lengthy confinement, a dishonorable discharge, forfeitures, and reduction in grade. More severe forms of misconduct, such as sexual acts or aggravated behavior, carry higher maximum penalties. The exact sentence is determined by the court-martial if a conviction occurs, based on the evidence, charges, and any applicable aggravating or mitigating factors.
Q: Can an allegation under this article lead to administrative separation even without a conviction?
A: Yes. Military commands may initiate administrative separation proceedings based on the underlying conduct, even if no court-martial conviction occurs. These actions use a lower burden of proof and can rely on a broader range of information. Possible outcomes include retention, administrative discharge, or other corrective measures. The process and potential consequences depend on the facts of the case, command discretion, and applicable service regulations.
Q: Do I need a civilian military defense lawyer for an investigation under this article?
A: Service members are entitled to consult with a military defense attorney at no cost, but some choose to hire a civilian military defense lawyer as well. A civilian attorney may provide additional time, resources, or experience in complex cases. Representation decisions depend on the service member’s circumstances, the nature of the investigation, and personal preference. Both military and civilian counsel can assist in navigating the investigative and legal processes.
Q: Can an Article 120b allegation be handled without a court-martial, such as through administrative action or nonjudicial punishment?
A: In some situations, commands may address certain misconduct through administrative actions or nonjudicial punishment instead of referring charges to a court-martial. This depends on the severity of the alleged conduct, available evidence, and command judgment. However, more serious allegations typically proceed to court-martial due to the nature of the offense. Administrative or nonjudicial outcomes still carry potential career, separation, and reputational consequences.
Q: Which agencies typically investigate allegations under Article 120b?
A: Allegations involving sexual abuse of a child are usually investigated by military criminal investigative organizations such as NCIS, CID, or OSI, depending on the branch involved. These agencies may coordinate with civilian law enforcement when an incident occurs off base or involves civilian participants. Investigations can include interviews, digital forensics, medical examinations, and evidence collection aimed at determining whether the allegations meet statutory elements.
If you want to review the Articles of the UCMJ and learn more about military law, you can start here: UCMJ Articles and Military Justice Resources. You may also find helpful official information from the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps at afjag.af.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.
