Table Content
Article 129 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice addresses the offense of burglary. Although “unlawful entry” is addressed separately in Article 130, the two offenses are related and often discussed together because both concern unauthorized entry into property. Article 129 focuses on entry with intent to commit a serious crime, while Article 130 involves unauthorized entry without the heightened intent element.
Article 129 criminalizes breaking and entering the dwelling of another during the nighttime with the intent to commit a criminal offense inside. The “breaking” element may be minimal, including opening an unlocked door if it constitutes an unauthorized intrusion. The dwelling must be a structure used for sleeping, whether occupied or unoccupied at the time.
By contrast, unlawful entry under Article 130 involves entering a building or structure without authorization but does not require nighttime conditions or intent to commit a separate offense. Both provisions protect the security and privacy of persons and property.
Any service member subject to the UCMJ may be charged under Article 129 or Article 130. Jurisdiction applies regardless of whether the property belongs to military authorities, civilians, or another service member.
Burglary under Article 129 requires a specific intent to commit an offense after entry. The actor must knowingly and unlawfully break and enter the dwelling. Negligence is insufficient because the offense demands a deliberate mental state.
For unlawful entry, the government must prove the accused knowingly entered without authorization. Intent to commit an additional crime is not required.
The following forms of derivative liability commonly apply:
The government must prove every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 129 encompasses two related offenses—burglary and unlawful entry—each with distinct statutory requirements that must be independently satisfied.
The mens rea for Article 129 centers on the accused’s specific intent to commit a criminal offense inside the structure at the moment of entry. This intent must coexist with the act of entering; a later-formed intent does not satisfy the element.
The actus reus consists of an unauthorized entry into the dwelling or property of another. In the case of burglary, the statute also requires a breaking, which may be minimal—such as pushing open a partly ajar door—and that the act occurred during nighttime, a fact that distinguishes burglary from unlawful entry.
Critical statutory terms include “dwelling,” meaning a structure used for human habitation, and “nighttime,” generally defined as the period when natural light is insufficient to discern a person’s features. These definitions inform whether the government has established each required element.
Punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) depends on the date the alleged offense was committed. Offenses occurring before December 27, 2023, are sentenced under the traditional maximum_punishment framework, while those committed on or after that date use the updated sentencing_category system established by the Military Justice Act of 2016 and implemented in the 2023 Manual for Courts-Martial.
Under the pre_December 27, 2023 system, Article 129 covered both burglary and unlawful entry, each with distinct maximum punishments:
The updated sentencing system assigns offenses to sentencing categories, each with an authorized confinement range. For Article 129 offenses:
Under the sentencing_category system, each category contains a confinement range that limits the judge’s sentencing authority. This differs from the prior model, which provided only a maximum punishment and left the minimum at zero unless otherwise specified. The new structure creates standardized ranges but retains judicial discretion within those limits. Discharge authorities and collateral punishments remain tied to the specific offense rather than the sentencing category.
In real military cases, charging decisions under Article 129 reflect the specific fact pattern, the direction of the initial investigation, and command priorities. Prosecutors typically look at the motive for entering a structure, what occurred inside, and how the conduct intersects with other potential offenses before determining whether to charge burglary, unlawful entry, or an alternative article.
The most frequent triggers for Article 129 charges involve servicemembers entering another person’s barracks room, office, storage space, or restricted facility without authorization. These allegations often surface when a victim reports missing property, signs of tampering, or an encounter with the accused inside a restricted area. Entry into unit supply rooms, motor pools, and administrative spaces after hours is another recurring pattern, especially when keys or access codes are misused. In some cases, Article 129 is charged because the accused’s presence inside a structure overlaps with an alleged intent to commit a separate offense, such as theft or assault, even if that offense is never completed.
Cases usually begin with a complaint from a servicemember, duty NCO, or facility manager who discovers an unauthorized entry, missing property, or unusual activity. Commands may initiate preliminary inquiries to preserve evidence and determine whether law-enforcement involvement is required. When circumstances suggest criminal intent, cases are typically handed to CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS, depending on the branch. These agencies gather physical evidence, review access logs, interview witnesses, and evaluate digital indicators such as card-swipe data or surveillance footage. Commanders remain closely involved, especially when security breaches affect operational spaces.
Prosecutors often employ overlapping theories, charging both burglary and underlying offenses to preserve options if the fact pattern evolves. Charge-stacking is common where the unauthorized entry supports multiple potential violations, particularly involving property crimes or interpersonal misconduct. In some instances, Article 129 is charged as an alternative to other statutes addressing trespass or property intrusion, allowing the factfinder to determine the level of intent and culpability based on the evidence presented.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 129 often hinge on the government’s ability to prove each statutory element beyond a reasonable doubt. Litigated issues frequently involve assessments of witness credibility, admissibility of evidence, and interpretations of statutory language or related provisions. These cases typically turn on factual nuances and the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented.
Contests over statutory elements are common because Article 129 requires proof of specific conditions, such as an unlawful entry and, in some variations, the intent to commit an offense inside. Disputes frequently arise over whether the location qualifies as a structure covered by the article, whether the entry was unauthorized, or whether the government has adequately shown a breaking or similar act. Litigation may focus on whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish an element, or whether the prosecution has drawn inferences beyond what the factual record supports.
The mental state associated with the alleged entry or intrusion is often a central point of contention. Courts may be asked to determine whether the government has presented adequate evidence of intent, knowledge, or, where relevant, a lesser mental state. Disputes can arise when the accused’s conduct is consistent with both lawful and unlawful explanations, or when the alleged intent must be inferred from circumstantial evidence. Mens rea challenges often involve examining the timing of the intent, particularly in cases where the prosecution must establish that the accused formed the requisite intent at the moment of entry.
Witness credibility frequently influences contested Article 129 cases. Variations in accounts, inconsistencies between statements, or gaps in recollection may affect the fact-finder’s interpretation of key events such as how entry occurred or what the accused intended. Disputes can also involve the reliability of investigative methods, the accuracy of documentation, or the weight to be given to testimony from individuals with potential biases or limited observational opportunities.
Courts often address disputes regarding the admissibility of statements, physical evidence, or digital records. Issues may arise over whether a search or seizure complied with constitutional and regulatory standards, whether a confession was obtained in accordance with required warnings, or whether digital logs and surveillance data meet authenticity and reliability standards. Suppression motions can focus on procedural compliance, chain of custody, or the scope of authorized searches.
Ambiguities in statutory terms, such as what constitutes “unlawful entry” or the nature of the structure involved, may lead to interpretive disputes. Courts may be required to analyze cross-referenced provisions within the UCMJ or the Manual for Courts-Martial to clarify definitions and legislative intent. These interpretive questions can influence both the theory of liability and the type of evidence considered legally sufficient.
Assault and aggravated assault charges that often accompany unlawful entry situations
Larceny and wrongful appropriation commonly linked to burglary allegations
Arson offenses that may arise in cases involving unlawful entry
Robbery charges that can be related to forced entry or intrusion offenses
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may arise from a conviction independently of the sentence adjudged by a court-martial. These outcomes can occur through separate military regulations, federal or state laws, or professional standards and may continue after a service member has completed any imposed punishment.
A conviction under UCMJ Article 129 for burglary or unlawful entry may influence several career-related determinations. Command authorities may initiate administrative separation based on the underlying misconduct, and the characterization of discharge may be affected by the seriousness of the offense. A conviction can also impact eligibility for promotion or retention, as well as the ability to complete service milestones required for retirement. Additionally, reenlistment opportunities and eligibility for future military service may be limited.
Burglarious or unlawful-entry offenses may raise concerns related to trustworthiness, reliability, and judgment, which are assessed during security clearance evaluations. A conviction may lead to suspension or revocation of an existing clearance and could affect eligibility for roles requiring access to classified information. These outcomes may also influence post-service employment in fields that rely on clearance eligibility or positions requiring background checks.
Depending on the facts of the case, some convictions involving unlawful entry may trigger reporting or registration obligations. Requirements such as sex offender registration typically arise only when the underlying conduct meets specific statutory criteria. Registration obligations are determined by federal and state laws and operate independently of military processes.
The conduct supporting a burglary or unlawful-entry conviction may also fall within federal or state criminal statutes, potentially creating exposure to separate civilian prosecution. In some cases, individuals may also face civil liability for property damage or losses resulting from the incident.
For non-citizen or naturalized service members, certain convictions may affect immigration status, admissibility, or naturalization eligibility. Immigration authorities make these determinations under federal law, separately from military proceedings.
When a service member is under investigation for a potential violation of UCMJ Article 129, decisions made during the initial investigative phase often influence the direction and outcome of the case long before charges are preferred. Early legal representation helps ensure that these decisions are informed and aligned with established rights and procedures.
Military investigators typically begin collecting evidence immediately, including witness statements, physical items, and digital data. Early legal involvement can help clarify how statements are documented, how searches are conducted, and how electronic information is handled, reducing the risk of misinterpretation or improper preservation.
Command or law-enforcement interviews may occur before a service member fully understands the allegations or the scope of the investigation. Without legal guidance, a service member may provide statements or clarifications that are incomplete, inaccurate, or taken out of context, potentially affecting later proceedings.
Administrative or command-directed inquiries can proceed independently of criminal investigations. Decisions made during these processes—including responses to information requests or participation in interviews—can influence both disciplinary outcomes and how evidence is viewed by investigators and commanders.
Choices made early in the investigation, such as consenting to searches or providing written statements, may carry forward into court-martial proceedings or administrative actions. Guidance from qualified counsel, including a civilian military defense lawyer, can help ensure that these early decisions are consistent with a service member’s rights and long-term 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 and high-stakes military criminal matters, providing legal representation that is grounded in experience with courts-martial, investigations, and administrative actions across all branches of the armed forces.
If you are facing allegations under UCMJ Article 129 or are under investigation for burglary or unlawful entry, you may contact Gonzalez & Waddington to discuss your situation. The firm can provide information about the process and help you understand your available options through a confidential consultation.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 129: Burglary or Unlawful Entry cover?
A: Article 129 addresses entering a building or structure unlawfully with the intent to commit a criminal offense. Burglary typically requires the entry to occur at night and with the specific intent to commit an offense inside, while unlawful entry involves unauthorized entry without that nighttime element. The article applies to service members regardless of location and considers factors such as intent, lawfulness of access, and the nature of the structure entered.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 129: Burglary or Unlawful Entry?
A: Maximum punishment depends on whether the offense is classified as burglary or unlawful entry. Burglary carries significantly higher potential penalties, which may include confinement and punitive discharge. Unlawful entry generally involves lower maximum penalties but remains a criminal offense under the UCMJ. Sentencing varies based on the specific facts, the service member’s record, and findings made at trial if a court-martial occurs.
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, patterns of behavior, or evidence presented during an investigation, even if the case does not result in a court-martial conviction. The standard of proof for administrative actions is lower than for criminal proceedings, and decisions may consider the service member’s overall performance, reliability, and potential impact on unit readiness or trust.
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, but some choose to hire civilian counsel for additional support. A civilian attorney may offer independent guidance and may have more availability for extended consultation. Whether to obtain civilian representation depends on the seriousness of the allegations, the complexity of the evidence, and the service member’s preference for additional legal resources.
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 conduct and the commander’s assessment, allegations under Article 129 may be addressed through nonjudicial punishment, administrative counseling, or separation actions rather than a court-martial. These alternatives generally involve different standards of proof and procedures. The decision often depends on factors such as intent, the level of harm, evidence strength, and the service member’s duty performance and history.
Q: Which agencies typically investigate allegations of burglary or unlawful entry in the military?
A: Investigations may be conducted by service-specific law enforcement agencies such as CID, NCIS, or OSI, depending on the branch. These agencies gather evidence, interview witnesses, and coordinate with commanders and legal advisors. Installation military police may also be involved in initial response and documentation. The scope of the investigation often depends on whether the allegation involves property crime, intent to commit an offense, or potential security concerns.
Q: What types of evidence are commonly used in Article 129 cases?
A: Evidence may include witness statements, surveillance footage, digital communications, access logs, physical evidence from the location, or indications of forced entry. Investigators often examine whether the accused had authorization to access the area and whether there was intent to commit another offense. The reliability, consistency, and source of evidence are key factors in determining how the case proceeds and how decision-makers evaluate the allegations.
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.
