Table Content
Article 131 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice defines and penalizes perjury committed in the military justice system. The provision covers false statements made under lawful oath during judicial, administrative, or investigative proceedings where such statements are material to the matter at hand. The article parallels federal perjury concepts while applying specifically within the military context.
Article 131 criminalizes knowingly making a false statement under oath or subscribing to a false sworn document. The statement must be material, meaning it has the capacity to influence the outcome or decision-making of the proceeding. Mere inconsistencies or immaterial inaccuracies do not meet the statutory threshold.
Any person subject to the UCMJ may be charged with perjury under Article 131. This includes active-duty service members, certain reservists, and others falling under Article 2 jurisdiction. Civilian witnesses not subject to the UCMJ are instead governed by federal perjury statutes.
The offense requires that the accused acted willfully and with knowledge of the falsity of the statement. Mistake, inadvertence, or misunderstanding generally does not satisfy the elements of the crime. The government must prove the accused knew the statement was false at the time it was made or sworn.
Attempt liability may arise under Article 80 when an individual takes substantial steps toward giving false sworn testimony but does not complete the act. Conspiracy charges may be brought when two or more persons agree to commit perjury and take an overt act in furtherance of the plan. Accomplice liability, including aiding or abetting another’s perjury, may also be charged under Article 77.
Article 131 functions to preserve the integrity of military judicial and investigative processes by ensuring the reliability of sworn statements.
The government must prove each element of perjury under Article 131 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements establish that the accused’s false statement was knowingly made under a lawful oath, in an authorized proceeding, and was material to that proceeding.
The mens rea for Article 131 requires that the accused knowingly make a false statement. This means the government must show that, at the time the statement was given, the accused did not believe it to be true. Mere mistake or faulty recollection does not meet this standard.
The actus reus consists of making or subscribing a false statement under a lawful oath during an authorized proceeding. Such proceedings include courts-martial, Article 32 preliminary hearings, and other forums where federal or military law permits the administration of an oath.
Materiality requires that the false statement had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the outcome of the proceeding. The government need not prove that the statement actually affected the result, only that it was significant to the matter under consideration.
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 governed by the sentencing_category framework implemented through the Military Justice Act of 2016 and subsequent rule changes.
For violations of Article 131 (Perjury) occurring before December 27, 2023, the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) prescribes the following maximum authorized punishment:
Under the pre_2023 model, these maximums functioned as absolute caps, and the sentencing authority could adjudge any combination of authorized punishments up to but not exceeding these limits.
For conduct occurring on or after December 27, 2023, Article 131 (Perjury) falls within Sentencing Category 5. Under this category, the sentencing authority is governed by a confinement range rather than a single maximum figure.
Under the sentencing_category system, each offense is assigned a confinement range that limits the sentencing authority’s discretion. This differs from the previous model, which relied solely on offense_specific maximum punishments. The new structure standardizes sentencing across offenses with similar seriousness and creates uniform ranges rather than individualized maximums. Other punitive components—such as punitive discharges, reduction in rank, and forfeitures—continue to be authorized as specified in the MCM.
Charging decisions involving Article 131 are shaped by concrete fact patterns, the way information surfaces during investigations, and command discretion regarding the credibility of sworn statements. Perjury under the UCMJ is most often charged when a service member’s sworn testimony becomes a central evidentiary component in an ongoing inquiry or proceeding and later proves inconsistent with verified facts.
Perjury allegations typically arise when a service member gives sworn testimony during a formal military proceeding, and subsequent evidence contradicts that testimony in a material way. The most common contexts include:
Perjury cases often originate when inconsistencies emerge during routine investigative steps. Command-directed inquiries may flag discrepancies after reviewing documents, witness accounts, or digital records. In more serious or complex cases, military law-enforcement agencies—such as CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS—conduct formal interviews, collect forensic evidence, and compare sworn statements against objective data. Investigators may also revisit earlier testimony as new evidence becomes available, triggering follow-up interviews that clarify whether inconsistencies reflect misunderstanding or deliberate falsehood.
Prosecutors commonly pursue overlapping charges when the same conduct violates multiple statutes, particularly where both sworn and unsworn false statements were made. Charge-stacking occurs when alternative theories of liability are presented to address different versions of events or to preserve prosecutorial options as evidence develops. Patterns also show that perjury charges often serve as supplemental counts within a broader case, rather than as stand-alone allegations, because materiality and intent usually emerge in conjunction with other misconduct.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 131, which addresses perjury and related false statement offenses, often hinge on proof of discrete statutory elements, the reliability of testimony, evidentiary rulings, and the interpretation of statutory language. Litigation typically centers on whether the government can establish that an accused knowingly made a false statement under oath in a proceeding where such an oath and statement were legally material.
Disputes frequently arise over whether the government has met its burden on one or more required elements of Article 131. A common point of contention concerns whether the statement was actually false, as opposed to incomplete, ambiguous, or the product of misunderstanding. Another recurring issue involves materiality: the requirement that the allegedly false statement have the potential to influence the proceeding in which it was made. Questions also emerge over whether the statement was made under a legally administered oath and whether the forum qualified as an official proceeding within the meaning of the statute.
Mental state requirements are often central in Article 131 litigation. The government must generally prove that the accused acted with knowledge of the statement’s falsity and with intent for it to be received as truthful. Contested issues include whether the accused believed the statement to be accurate at the time, whether discrepancies stem from confusion or memory lapses rather than knowing falsehood, and whether the context supports an inference of intentional deception. Courts regularly assess the surrounding circumstances to determine whether the requisite mens rea is supported by the evidence.
Because perjury charges focus on the truth or falsity of sworn statements, credibility issues often play a significant role. Factfinders may be required to evaluate conflicting accounts from the accused, witnesses, investigators, or expert interpreters of records. Disputes may involve the reliability of recollections, the consistency of statements over time, or the plausibility of competing narratives. These assessments typically influence how factfinders view whether the government has met its burden.
Evidentiary objections arise regarding the admissibility of sworn statements, transcripts, recordings, or digital communications. Challenges may involve whether the statement was properly authenticated, whether it was accurately transcribed, or whether certain investigative methods complied with procedural requirements. In some cases, suppression issues arise if statements were obtained in circumstances implicating Article 31(b) rights, or if digital or documentary evidence was collected through searches whose scope or authorization is contested.
Ambiguities in the text of Article 131 or cross-referenced provisions can lead to litigation over definitions such as materiality, oath administration, or what constitutes an official proceeding. Courts may also address whether evolving forms of communication fall within statutory terms or how precedent applies to specific procedural settings. These interpretive questions often shape the legal standards applied at trial and on appeal.
Understanding obstruction-related offenses that often accompany perjury allegations
Subornation of perjury as a closely linked evidentiary offense
Refusal to testify issues that commonly arise in similar proceedings
False official statements frequently charged alongside testimonial misconduct
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may arise separately from the sentence imposed in a court-martial. These consequences can occur through military regulations, federal or state law, and professional standards, and they may persist regardless of the punishment adjudged at trial.
A conviction for perjury under UCMJ Article 131 can influence a service member’s standing within the military. Administrative authorities may consider the conviction when evaluating:
Because perjury involves integrity and truthfulness, a conviction may affect eligibility for a security clearance. Review authorities may reassess access to classified information or sensitive duties. Post-service employment in fields that require federal clearance or trust-based positions can also be affected.
Perjury convictions under Article 131 do not ordinarily trigger sex offender registration. However, certain reporting or documentation requirements may apply depending on the circumstances of the case and relevant federal or state laws. Registration obligations, when applicable, are determined by statute rather than military authority.
The conduct underlying an Article 131 conviction may, in some situations, overlap with federal or state perjury statutes. This can create potential exposure to parallel civilian prosecution or, in limited circumstances, civil liability if false statements caused measurable harm.
For non-citizens or naturalized service members, a perjury conviction may be reviewed during immigration or citizenship processes. Relevant authorities may assess how the conviction relates to admissibility, good moral character evaluations, or future immigration benefits.
During the investigative phase of a potential UCMJ Article 131 perjury case, decisions made by a service member can shape the direction and outcome of the matter long before any charges are preferred. Early legal representation helps ensure that the service member understands the process, the allegations, and the implications of every action taken during this stage.
Military investigators typically begin collecting statements, documents, and electronic data as soon as an allegation arises. Early legal involvement can help a service member understand how their statements may be interpreted, how digital evidence may be obtained, and how investigative steps could influence the overall narrative. Counsel can also provide guidance on preserving personal records that may become relevant later.
Command or law-enforcement interviews often occur before the service member has full visibility into the allegations or their rights. Without legal guidance, a service member may unintentionally provide incomplete or inaccurate information that could later be viewed as inconsistent. A lawyer, including a civilian military defense lawyer, can help ensure the service member makes informed decisions about participation in interviews.
Command-directed inquiries, such as administrative investigations or commander’s fact-finding efforts, can run independently from criminal proceedings. Early actions taken in these processes—such as written responses or interviews—may influence both administrative outcomes and potential criminal assessments.
Early decisions about statements, consent to searches, or cooperation with administrative processes can affect later stages of a court-martial or administrative action. These initial choices may shape how evidence is viewed, how credibility is assessed, and how the case progresses through the military justice system.
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 courts-martial, administrative actions, and military investigations, providing guidance through the complexities of military justice procedures and regulations.
If you are facing perjury-related allegations under UCMJ Article 131, Gonzalez & Waddington can discuss the circumstances of your case and explain your options. You are invited to contact the firm to request a confidential consultation.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 131: Perjury cover?
A: UCMJ Article 131 addresses knowingly making a false statement under oath in a judicial or official military proceeding where the statement is material to the case. The article applies to service members who provide sworn testimony, affidavits, or declarations that they know to be false. The focus is on intentional deception that could influence the proceeding’s outcome. The government must show the statement was both knowingly false and materially relevant.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 131: Perjury?
A: The maximum punishment for perjury under Article 131 can include a dishonorable discharge, total forfeiture of pay and allowances, reduction to the lowest enlisted grade, and confinement. The severity of the sentence depends on the facts of the case, the materiality of the false statement, and the service member’s overall record. The sentencing authority evaluates how the false statement impacted the proceeding and the degree of intent involved.
Q: Can an allegation under this article lead to administrative separation even without a conviction?
A: Yes. Commands may initiate administrative separation proceedings based on credible allegations of perjury or conduct inconsistent with military standards, even if no court-martial conviction occurs. Administrative processes use a lower standard of proof and focus on suitability for continued service. The outcome can range from retention to characterization of service actions. Each case is assessed individually, considering available evidence and the service member’s performance history.
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 a civilian military defense lawyer for additional representation. This decision depends on personal preference, case complexity, and desired legal strategy. Civilian counsel can offer independent advice and may have broader availability, but the choice is voluntary. Regardless of representation, understanding rights during questioning and investigative processes is important.
Q: Can an allegation of perjury be handled without a court-martial, such as through administrative action or nonjudicial punishment?
A: In some cases, commands may address suspected perjury through administrative measures or nonjudicial punishment rather than pursuing a court-martial. This may occur when the evidence does not clearly meet the legal requirements for perjury or when the command believes a lesser action is appropriate. Options can include counseling, reprimands, NJP proceedings, or separation actions. The chosen process depends on the circumstances and the command’s assessment of the misconduct.
Q: Which investigative agencies commonly handle suspected violations of Article 131?
A: Investigations into suspected perjury are typically conducted by military law enforcement agencies such as CID, NCIS, or OSI, depending on the service branch. These agencies may review testimony transcripts, interview witnesses, and examine documents submitted under oath. In some cases, legal offices may conduct preliminary reviews to determine whether a formal investigation is warranted. The investigative scope depends on the context and the significance of the alleged false statement.
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.
