Table Content
Article 120b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice establishes criminal liability for sexual offenses committed against a child. A “child” is defined as a person who has not attained the age of 16 years. The article applies to servicemembers subject to the UCMJ and covers a broad range of prohibited sexual conduct.
The statute prohibits sexual acts and sexual contact with a child, whether accomplished by force, threats, or without any coercion. It also criminalizes lewd acts involving a child, including intentionally exposing one’s genitalia to a child or causing a child to expose themselves for sexual gratification. The law further includes intentionally communicating indecent language to a child with sexual intent.
Common categories of conduct include:
Article 120b applies to any person subject to the UCMJ, including active-duty servicemembers, certain reservists, and others falling under military jurisdiction. The child victim does not need to be affiliated with the military. Consent by a child is not a defense.
Most offenses under Article 120b require that the accused acted intentionally or knowingly. For lewd acts, the government must usually prove the conduct was committed with sexual intent. Mistake of fact as to age is generally not a defense unless expressly raised by statute for specific sub-offenses.
Attempt liability under Article 80 commonly applies, and an accused may be charged for taking a substantial step toward committing an Article 120b offense. Conspiracy under Article 81 may apply when two or more persons agree to commit a sexual offense against a child. Accomplice liability is available when an individual aids, abets, counsels, or commands the commission of the offense.
The government must prove each element of an Article 120b offense beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements define the precise conduct, circumstances, and mental state that constitute sexual offenses against a child under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The mens rea for Article 120b generally requires that the accused acted intentionally or knowingly with respect to the sexual act or contact. The government need not prove knowledge of the child’s exact age unless specified by the particular subsection charged.
The actus reus consists of performing a “sexual act” or “sexual contact,” both of which are defined by statute. A sexual act typically involves penetration or oral-genital contact, while sexual contact generally refers to intentional touching of specified body parts with the requisite intent.
Key statutory terms include “child,” defined as a person under 16 years of age unless otherwise stated, and the detailed definitions of “sexual act” and “sexual contact” found in Article 120b and incorporated provisions of Article 120. These definitions guide the factfinder in determining whether the prohibited conduct occurred.
Punishment for violations of Article 120b, UCMJ, depends on the date of the alleged offense. Cases involving conduct before December 27, 2023 are sentenced under the traditional maximum_punishment model, while offenses on or after that date use the structured sentencing_category system implemented by the National Defense Authorization Act and corresponding amendments to Article 56.
Under the pre_December 27, 2023 system, Article 120b offenses carried offense_specific maximum punishments established in the Manual for Courts_Martial (MCM). The precise maximum depended on the subsection (for example, sexual assault of a child versus sexual abuse of a child). In general:
For offenses committed on or after December 27, 2023, sentencing is governed by the structured sentencing_category system. Article 120b offenses are designated within the highest sentencing category (Category 5), which applies to the most serious felony_level offenses.
Under the sentencing_category model, the factfinder adjudges a sentence within the confinement range assigned to the offense category rather than relying on a single maximum_punishment ceiling. This system standardizes punishment across offenses by grouping them into categories with defined sentencing ranges, whereas the prior model relied on individualized maximum punishments for each offense without structured confinement bands.
In real military prosecutions, charging decisions under Article 120b are shaped by the specific fact pattern, the investigative route through which the allegation emerges, and the discretion exercised by commanders and prosecutors. Cases often evolve as evidence develops, leading to adjustments in the specific offenses selected for referral.
Allegations commonly arise from situations where service members have regular access to children through family connections, base housing environments, youth programs, or social relationships. Reports frequently originate from a child’s disclosure to a parent, teacher, medical provider, or another trusted adult. Digital communication between a child and a service member can also trigger allegations, particularly when messages escalate to inappropriate content. In some cases, civilian authorities receive the initial report and notify military law enforcement after determining the subject is an active-duty member. These cases generally focus on sustained behavior rather than isolated or extreme hypotheticals, such as gradual boundary violations, inappropriate touching, or alleged grooming behaviors observed within family or community settings.
Cases typically begin with a disclosure made to a caregiver, school official, medical provider, or civilian law enforcement agency. Once the military becomes aware, CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS generally assumes investigative responsibility. Investigations commonly include forensic interviews conducted by trained child specialists, digital forensic examinations, and coordination with civilian child-protective services. Commands may conduct preliminary inquiries to understand the allegation and ensure immediate safety measures but defer substantive fact-finding to military law enforcement. Coordination between military and civilian agencies is common when incidents occur off base or involve non-military family members.
Prosecutors frequently use overlapping statutes to present alternative theories, particularly when distinguishing between sexual acts, sexual contact, and attempted conduct. Charge-stacking can occur when a single course of conduct potentially violates multiple subsections of Article 120b or related offenses. Overlapping charges may also reflect differing interpretations of digital communications, physical interactions, or sequential behaviors during an alleged incident. These patterns reflect a preference for capturing the full spectrum of alleged misconduct during referral while allowing fact-finders to determine which theories are supported by evidence.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 120b frequently involve complex questions of proof, credibility, evidentiary sufficiency, and statutory interpretation. Because the statute covers a range of conduct involving minors, litigation often centers on whether the government has established each required element and whether the evidence is admissible, reliable, and properly interpreted under governing law.
Contested issues commonly arise over whether the government has met its burden to prove each statutory element beyond a reasonable doubt. These disputes often focus on:
Mens rea is frequently litigated because Article 120b includes offenses that require varying mental states. Disputes often involve:
Because mental-state requirements shape the government’s burden, courts often examine contextual facts, patterns of communication, and surrounding circumstances.
Credibility assessments frequently influence findings in Article 120b cases, particularly when corroborating evidence is limited. Disputes may involve:
Litigation regularly addresses the admissibility and scope of evidence. Common issues include:
Article 120b contains cross-referenced definitions and terms that can create interpretive disputes. Courts may consider:
Overview of broader UCMJ sexual assault provisions
Indecent viewing and related misconduct involving minors
Child endangerment charges that may accompany sexual offenses
Child pornography offenses frequently linked to child sexual misconduct cases
Assault or aggravated assault charges sometimes paired with child sexual allegations
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may arise from a conviction independent of the punishment imposed by a court-martial. These consequences typically occur through separate regulatory or statutory processes and may continue long after the completion of any sentence imposed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
A conviction under UCMJ Article 120b may lead to significant administrative actions. Service members may face administrative separation, often with an other-than-honorable characterization of service, which can affect access to veterans’ benefits. A conviction can also render a member ineligible for promotion or reenlistment. For members approaching retirement eligibility, the conviction may affect retention decisions or lead to the loss of the opportunity to reach a qualifying service threshold. Future service in any military component is typically unlikely following such a conviction.
A conviction for a sexual offense against a child may lead to suspension or revocation of a security clearance. Loss of clearance can immediately affect current duties requiring access to classified information. After service, individuals seeking employment in fields that rely on clearance eligibility or suitability determinations may experience significant limitations.
Depending on the offense and jurisdiction, a conviction under Article 120b may trigger sex offender registration. Registration requirements are determined by federal law, such as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, as well as state and local statutes. Duration and specific obligations vary by jurisdiction.
Conduct underlying an Article 120b conviction may also expose an individual to federal or state criminal investigation or prosecution. In some circumstances, civil claims, including tort actions, may be pursued by affected parties.
For non-citizens or naturalized service members, a conviction may have immigration consequences. These can include inadmissibility, removal proceedings, or challenges in maintaining or obtaining citizenship status, subject to federal immigration law.
During investigations under UCMJ Article 120b, decisions made in the earliest stages often shape the direction of the case long before any charges are preferred. Actions taken during this period can influence how information is recorded, interpreted, and later presented in administrative or judicial proceedings.
Military investigators typically gather statements, digital materials, and documentary records soon after an allegation is made. Early legal involvement helps ensure that a service member understands how evidence is being collected and how their interactions may affect its interpretation. Counsel can also advise on preservation issues related to electronic devices, communications, and other materials that may later become relevant.
Command or law-enforcement interviews often occur before a service member fully understands the scope of the allegations. Without legal guidance, a member may make statements that are incomplete, inconsistent, or taken out of context. Early interviews may also involve unfamiliar procedural rules, increasing the risk of providing information without fully understanding one’s rights.
Administrative inquiries and command-directed investigations can proceed independently of criminal processes. Early decisions made in these inquiries—such as providing a statement or responding to information requests—can influence later determinations even if criminal charges are not pursued.
Choices made early in the investigative phase, including consenting to searches or providing written responses, can carry forward into court-martial litigation or administrative actions. Guidance from qualified counsel, including civilian military defense lawyers, can help ensure these decisions are informed and aligned with long-term considerations.
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 complex military criminal matters, including allegations involving sensitive offenses, and provides guidance throughout the military justice process.
If you are facing allegations under Article 120b or have been notified of an investigation, Gonzalez & Waddington can provide guidance on your options within the military justice system. To discuss your situation in a confidential setting, you may contact the firm to request a consultation.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 120b: Sexual Offenses Against a Child cover?
A: Article 120b addresses sexual offenses involving individuals under the age of 16. It includes a range of conduct such as sexual acts, sexual contact, and lewd acts committed with or against a child. The article also covers attempts and situations where the accused reasonably should have known the child’s age. The focus is on protecting minors while outlining the government’s burden to prove each required element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 120b: Sexual Offenses Against a Child?
A: Maximum punishments depend on the specific subsection and alleged conduct. Penalties can include lengthy confinement, dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay, and reduction in rank. Some offenses under this article authorize confinement for decades or up to life. Sentencing is determined by the severity of the conduct, aggravating factors, and evidence presented at trial. Commanders and military judges follow the Manual for Courts-Martial when considering applicable maximum penalties.
Q: Can an allegation under this article lead to administrative separation even without a conviction?
A: Yes. Service members may face administrative separation based on substantiated misconduct or concerns about suitability for continued service, even without a court_martial conviction. Commands may initiate administrative action if they believe the evidence supports separation under a lower evidentiary standard than required in criminal cases. The process typically includes notice to the member and an opportunity to respond or appear before an administrative board, depending on rank and years of service.
Q: Do I need a civilian military defense lawyer for an investigation under this article?
A: Service members are entitled to a detailed military defense counsel at no cost, but some choose to hire a civilian attorney for additional representation. Whether to retain civilian counsel is a personal decision influenced by the complexity of the allegations, potential consequences, and desired level of support. Civilian attorneys may provide continuity, additional resources, and independent legal advice. However, no regulation requires a service member to hire civilian counsel during an investigation.
Q: Can allegations under Article 120b be handled without a court-martial, such as through administrative action or nonjudicial punishment?
A: Some cases may be addressed through administrative actions or nonjudicial punishment when the command determines that the conduct does not warrant a court_martial or when evidence is insufficient for criminal prosecution but still raises concerns. These processes use lower evidentiary standards and may result in career-impacting consequences. However, more serious or well_substantiated allegations are typically referred for court_martial because of the nature of offenses involving minors.
Q: Which agencies typically investigate suspected violations of Article 120b?
A: Investigations are usually conducted by military criminal investigative organizations such as CID, NCIS, or OSI, depending on the service branch. These agencies gather witness statements, digital evidence, forensic examinations, and other relevant information. They may also coordinate with civilian law enforcement when the alleged conduct overlaps jurisdictions. Their role is to compile an impartial investigative report, which commanders and legal advisors use when determining potential charges or administrative actions.
Q: What types of evidence are commonly evaluated in Article 120b cases?
A: Evidence may include statements from the child, parents, or witnesses; digital communications; forensic interviews; medical examinations; and electronic data such as phone records, images, or online activity. Investigators may also review location data, social media content, and expert assessments regarding child testimony or digital forensics. The weight given to each piece depends on its credibility, reliability, and relevance to the charged conduct, as evaluated by legal and investigative professionals.
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.
