Table Content
Article 122 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes robbery, defined as the taking of property from another person or from the person’s presence by means of force, violence, or threats of immediate or future injury. The offense is complete when both the taking and the use or threat of force occur. Actual physical injury is not required so long as the threat or use of force places the victim in reasonable fear.
Robbery under Article 122 covers the wrongful taking, obtaining, or withholding of property with the intent to permanently or temporarily deprive the owner of its use. The property must be taken directly from the person or their immediate presence. Force, violence, or intimidation must accompany the taking.
Key elements typically include:
Any service member subject to the UCMJ may be charged under Article 122. Civilians are generally outside UCMJ jurisdiction unless covered under specific statutory extensions, such as during certain contingency operations. The status of the victim is irrelevant; robbery can be committed against service members, civilians, or enemy personnel.
Robbery under Article 122 requires specific intent to steal, meaning the accused must knowingly and purposefully intend to take property wrongfully. Negligence is insufficient, and the government must prove the accused acted with conscious objective to deprive the owner of property. Knowledge of using force to accomplish the taking is also required.
Attempted robbery may be charged under Article 80 when the accused takes a substantial step toward committing robbery but does not complete the offense. Conspiracy to commit robbery is punishable under Article 81 if an agreement and overt act are proven. Accomplice liability under Article 77 applies to those who aid, abet, or encourage the robbery, even if they do not personally use force.
The offense of robbery under Article 122 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice requires the government to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements define the specific conduct and mental state that must be established to sustain a conviction.
The mens rea for robbery requires that the accused act with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. This intent distinguishes robbery from lesser property offenses and must exist at the time of the taking. A mere temporary borrowing or incidental possession does not satisfy this mental component.
The actus reus consists of a wrongful taking of property from the victim’s person or immediate presence. The taking must be accomplished through the use of violence or by placing the victim in fear, and even minimal force may be sufficient if it facilitates the taking. The property must have tangible value and be capable of being possessed.
Critical statutory terms include “violence,” which refers to physical force used to overcome resistance, and “fear,” which encompasses intimidation causing the victim to yield property. These concepts focus on the coercive nature of the taking and are central to establishing robbery under Article 122.
Punishment for violations of Article 122, UCMJ (Robbery), depends on the date on which the offense was allegedly committed. Offenses committed before December 27, 2023 are sentenced under the traditional “maximum punishment” model. Offenses committed on or after that date are sentenced under the newer offense-category framework established by the Military Justice Act amendments.
Under the pre_December 27, 2023 system, Article 122 authorized different punishment limits depending on whether the robbery was committed with a firearm or other dangerous weapon.
Under the post_December 27, 2023 framework, Article 122 is assigned to a sentencing category rather than having a standalone maximum sentence. Robbery is classified as a Category 5 offense, the category reserved for the most serious violent crimes.
Under the category_based system, offenses are grouped according to seriousness, and each category carries a defined confinement range. This differs from the prior model, in which each offense contained its own individualized maximum punishment. The category approach creates standardized ranges, while still allowing the court_martial to adjudge any lawful punitive discharge, reduction, or forfeitures associated with the offense.
Charging decisions under Article 122 generally follow the specific fact patterns uncovered during initial reports and subsequent investigations, along with the command’s assessment of seriousness, intent, and evidentiary sufficiency. In practice, prosecutors focus on whether force, violence, or intimidation was used to seize property and how clearly those elements can be demonstrated through witness statements, physical evidence, and digital records.
Robbery charges most commonly arise from incidents occurring off duty or off installation, often linked to confrontations in parking lots, barracks areas, or local nightlife districts. Allegations frequently involve a dispute that escalates into physical force used to take a phone, wallet, or other personal effects. Group-involved altercations are also common, especially where multiple service members participate in or encourage the taking of property during a fight. Another recurring scenario involves the use of intimidation without significant physical violence, such as demanding property while making threats or implying imminent harm. In deployed or training environments, allegations sometimes stem from the seizure of property from other service members during interpersonal conflicts.
Robbery allegations usually begin with a direct report from a victim or witness to military police, civilian law enforcement, or a unit leader. Serious or unclear circumstances often prompt immediate involvement by CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS, depending on the branch. Investigations typically include recorded interviews, evidence collection from the scene, analysis of phone data or surveillance footage, and coordination with local authorities when the incident occurs off installation. Commands may initiate parallel inquiries to determine immediate administrative steps while the law-enforcement investigation proceeds.
Prosecutors commonly use charge-stacking to account for multiple theories of liability, allowing the panel to consider both force-based robbery and related property or assault offenses. Overlap with Articles 121 and 128 is routine because the same conduct can satisfy elements of more than one offense. When the evidence presents ambiguity about intent or the degree of force used, alternative charges are often included to ensure the fact-finder can reach a supported verdict.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 122 often hinge on whether the government can establish each statutory element beyond a reasonable doubt. Disputes commonly involve the sufficiency of evidence supporting those elements, the reliability of witness accounts, the admissibility of key pieces of evidence, and the interpretation of statutory terms. These issues frequently shape the scope of litigation and the outcome at trial or on appeal.
Controversies regularly arise over whether the government has met its burden on specific statutory elements, such as the use of force, violence, or intimidation; the taking of property from the person or presence of another; and the intent to permanently or temporarily deprive the owner of that property. Questions may focus on whether the amount or nature of force was legally sufficient, whether the property was taken “from the person or presence,” or whether a taking occurred at all. These disputes often involve detailed examination of physical evidence, the sequence of events, and the coherence of witness accounts.
Intent is frequently a litigated issue in Article 122 cases. Challenges may concern whether the accused acted with the requisite intent to steal or deprive, and whether the government’s evidence supports an inference of purposeful action rather than impulsive behavior or misunderstanding. Mens rea disputes may also involve distinguishing between knowing conduct and actions that might reflect lesser mental states. Because robbery requires both the taking and the intent to deprive, litigation often centers on whether the surrounding circumstances adequately demonstrate that state of mind.
Witness credibility plays a significant role in many robbery prosecutions. Contested issues may involve inconsistencies in statements, potential bias, memory limitations, or the reliability of identifications. Investigative practices, documentation, or perceived gaps in the investigative record can also affect fact-finding. These credibility assessments influence how fact-finders weigh competing narratives about the use of force, the sequence of events, and the accused’s behavior before, during, and after the incident.
Evidentiary challenges often address the admissibility of statements made by the accused, compliance with rights advisements, the scope and lawfulness of searches, and the collection of physical or digital evidence. Disputes may arise over chain-of-custody issues, the reliability of recordings, or the foundational adequacy of documentary materials. Suppression motions can also involve whether investigators adhered to procedural requirements during interrogations or seizures.
Litigation may turn on how statutory terms such as “force,” “violence,” “intimidation,” or “presence” are interpreted. Ambiguities in definitions or cross-referenced provisions can lead to disputes over the scope of conduct covered by Article 122. Courts may analyze legislative history, case law, and structural context to determine how these terms apply to specific factual scenarios.
Larceny and wrongful appropriation frequently intersect with robbery allegations
Receiving or concealing stolen property as a related property offense
Assault or aggravated assault implicated when force is used during a robbery
Burglary and unlawful entry when robbery occurs in conjunction with breaking and entering
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may occur independently of any sentence imposed by a court-martial. These consequences often arise from military regulations, federal or state laws, and policies of outside agencies, and they may continue to affect a service member after completion of judicial punishment.
A conviction under UCMJ Article 122: Robbery may prompt administrative action separate from the court-martial outcome. Possible results include:
A robbery conviction can affect eligibility for a security clearance due to concerns related to judgment, reliability, and criminal conduct. This may restrict access to classified information and certain duty assignments. After separation, former service members may face employment limitations for positions requiring a clearance or suitability determination.
Robbery itself does not typically trigger sex offender registration. However, if the underlying conduct includes elements covered by federal or state registration statutes, reporting obligations may apply. Registration requirements are determined by federal law and the laws of individual states.
The same conduct that results in a court-martial conviction may also expose an individual to prosecution under federal or state criminal law. Additionally, victims may pursue civil claims seeking compensation for losses or damages.
For non-citizens, a conviction for robbery may have immigration consequences, such as effects on admissibility, adjustment of status, or future naturalization eligibility, depending on federal immigration law.
During an investigation under UCMJ Article 122, decisions made in the initial stages often influence the direction and outcome of the case long before any charges are preferred. Early legal guidance helps ensure that a service member understands the investigative environment and the potential implications of each step.
Military investigators typically gather evidence immediately, including witness statements, physical items, and digital data. Early legal involvement can help a service member understand how evidence is being collected, how their own statements may be recorded or interpreted, and what rights apply to searches or data preservation. Civilian military defense lawyers may also assist in clarifying how evidence may be viewed in later proceedings.
Initial interviews with command or law-enforcement personnel can occur before a service member fully understands the specific allegations or the scope of the investigation. Without legal guidance, a service member may provide incomplete or unclear information, inadvertently waive rights, or make statements that are later used in a broader investigative context.
Command-directed inquiries, such as administrative investigations or AR 15-6 processes, often run parallel to criminal investigations. Early decisions made during these inquiries—such as written responses or participation in interviews—may influence command perceptions and affect later administrative or disciplinary actions.
Choices made early in the process, including consenting to searches, providing statements, or responding to administrative requests, can shape the evidentiary record and be referenced throughout court-martial proceedings or administrative reviews. Understanding these potential long-term effects helps ensure that decisions align with a service member’s legal interests.
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 criminal matters, courts-martial, and administrative actions, providing guidance grounded in a detailed understanding of military procedures, investigative practices, and trial advocacy.
If you or a loved one is under investigation or facing allegations connected to UCMJ Article 122, you may contact Gonzalez & Waddington to discuss the situation and explore available legal options. The firm offers consultations to help service members make informed decisions about their defense.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 122: Robbery cover?
A: UCMJ Article 122 addresses the taking of property from another person or from their immediate presence through the use of force, violence, or intimidation. The offense requires both the intent to steal and the use of actions that compel the victim to surrender property. The article applies to service members in any duty status and can involve situations occurring on or off installation, depending on the circumstances and military jurisdiction.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 122: Robbery?
A: The maximum punishment can include a lengthy term of confinement, a dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and reduction in rank. Specific penalties depend on factors such as whether a weapon was used, whether bodily harm occurred, and the value of the property taken. Sentencing decisions consider the facts of the case, aggravating or mitigating circumstances, and the findings reached at trial after reviewing the evidence presented.
Q: Can an allegation under this article lead to administrative separation even without a conviction?
A: Yes. Commanders have discretion to initiate administrative separation when credible evidence suggests misconduct, even if it does not result in a court_martial conviction. Administrative processes use a different standard of proof and can proceed based on the service member’s overall performance, reliability, and risk to good order and discipline. Possible outcomes may include retention, a rehabilitative process, or separation with a characterization determined by the relevant administrative board.
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, but some choose to hire civilian counsel for additional support. Whether to do so depends on the complexity of the allegations, the potential consequences, and the individual’s preference for private representation. Civilian attorneys can work alongside appointed military counsel, but hiring one is optional and not required to participate in an investigation or defend against allegations.
Q: Can a robbery allegation be handled without a court-martial, such as through administrative action or nonjudicial punishment?
A: In some cases, commands may address alleged misconduct through nonjudicial punishment or administrative measures rather than court_martial, especially when evidence is limited or the conduct is considered less severe. However, robbery is generally viewed as a serious offense, and many cases are referred to court_martial for full judicial review. The chosen path depends on the evidence, the seriousness of the conduct, and the commander’s assessment of the situation.
Q: Which agencies typically investigate allegations of robbery under the UCMJ?
A: Investigations may be conducted by military law enforcement organizations such as CID, NCIS, or OSI, depending on the service branch. These agencies gather statements, forensic evidence, digital data, and other material relevant to the allegation. Commanders may also initiate preliminary inquiries before referring matters to investigative authorities. The scope and depth of the investigation depend on the nature of the incident and any associated safety or security concerns.
Q: What types of evidence are commonly used in UCMJ robbery cases?
A: Evidence may include witness statements, physical items allegedly taken, surveillance footage, forensic findings, electronic communications, and any documentation showing the sequence of events. Investigators often examine the level of force used, the presence of threats, and the accused’s intent at the time of the incident. The strength of the case depends on how well the evidence supports each required element of the offense under Article 122.
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.
