Table Content
Article 131a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice establishes the offense of subornation of perjury. It addresses situations in which a person subject to the UCMJ unlawfully procures, induces, or persuades another to commit perjury in an official proceeding. The provision mirrors the structure of federal perjury law but applies specifically within the military justice system.
The statute criminalizes causing or attempting to cause another person to make a false statement under oath, knowing the statement to be false, during a judicial or administrative proceeding authorized by law. The offense focuses on the wrongful procurement, not merely the false testimony itself. The underlying perjury must be material, meaning it has a natural tendency to influence the proceeding.
Any service member subject to the UCMJ may be charged under Article 131a. The person induced to commit perjury may also face separate charges for perjury under Article 131. Civilians not subject to the UCMJ may be involved factually but are not charged under this article.
The offense requires that the accused act with knowledge that the testimony sought is false. Intent to cause another to commit perjury is essential; negligence or mistake does not satisfy the required mental state. The government must prove the accused deliberately sought to procure false, material testimony.
Attempt liability may apply when the accused tries to induce perjury but the witness does not ultimately testify falsely.
Conspiracy charges may be brought when two or more persons agree to secure false testimony in a military proceeding.
A service member may face liability as an aider or abettor if they knowingly assist another person’s effort to procure false testimony.
The government must prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements define the specific conduct and mental state required to establish subornation of perjury under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The mens rea for Article 131a requires that the accused act knowingly and willfully. This means the accused must be aware both of the falsity of the testimony sought and of the wrongful nature of inducing that testimony.
The actus reus consists of procuring, persuading, or otherwise inducing another individual to commit perjury. Actual coercion is not required; any intentional effort that results in another giving material false testimony under oath satisfies the conduct element.
Perjury, for purposes of Article 131a, involves a willfully false statement made under lawful oath in a judicial proceeding or other context within the administration of military justice. A statement is material when it has a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the authority or tribunal involved.
Punishment for violations of Article 131a, UCMJ (Subornation of Perjury) 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 use the sentencing_category framework established by the Military Justice Act of 2016 and implemented in the 2024 Manual for Courts_Martial.
For offenses occurring prior to December 27, 2023, Article 131a carried the same maximum punishment authorized for perjury. Under the 2019 Manual for Courts_Martial, the maximum authorized punishment included:
For offenses on or after December 27, 2023, Article 131a is assigned to Sentencing Category 2 under Appendix 12A of the 2024 Manual for Courts_Martial. The sentencing consequences include:
Under the sentencing_category system, offenses are grouped into categories with defined confinement ranges rather than a single maximum term. The judge or panel selects a confinement term within that range. This framework contrasts with the prior model, which specified a single maximum punishment for each offense but did not assign structured sentencing ranges. The newer system is intended to promote greater consistency by placing offenses of comparable seriousness within the same sentencing category while still allowing case_specific discretion.
Charging decisions under Article 131a are shaped by concrete fact patterns, the nature of the underlying investigation, and command discretion. The offense is rarely charged in isolation; instead, it emerges when an ongoing case reveals efforts to influence testimony or official statements. Commands rely heavily on investigative findings and the credibility of witnesses before pursuing the charge.
Article 131a charges most often arise when a service member allegedly pressures another individual to give false testimony during an official proceeding. Typical scenarios include:
Cases typically originate when a witness reports pressure to lie or when investigators detect inconsistencies suggesting external influence. Command-directed inquiries often uncover the initial allegations, triggering referrals to CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS depending on the service branch. These agencies frequently corroborate claims through digital evidence, interview patterns, and comparative statement analysis. Commands may also identify potential subornation during collateral investigations into misconduct such as fraternization, financial wrongdoing, or interpersonal violence.
Prosecutors commonly pursue overlapping charges to account for multiple theories of liability, especially when the conduct touches several stages of an investigation. Charge_stacking is most visible when both solicitation of false testimony and broader obstruction behaviors are alleged. Article 131a frequently overlaps with false_statement and obstruction provisions, allowing trial counsel to address both the influence attempt and any resulting false sworn statements under separate articles. The charge is used sparingly but purposefully when evidence shows active attempts to manipulate official proceedings.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 131a: Subornation of Perjury often hinge on whether the government can establish each statutory element through reliable evidence. These cases typically involve close examination of witness credibility, the circumstances under which statements were made, admissibility of supporting evidence, and interpretation of statutory terms that define the scope of the offense.
Controversies frequently arise regarding whether the government has satisfied its burden on particular elements, especially those involving the existence of actual perjury and the accused’s alleged role in procuring it. Litigated issues often include:
Intent requirements are often central because the government must typically show that the accused knowingly and intentionally induced another person to give false testimony. Disputes commonly arise over:
Witness credibility regularly becomes a contested issue, particularly where the alleged suborned witness provides the primary evidence of inducement. Panels and judges may need to evaluate inconsistent statements, motives to fabricate, or investigative techniques that could affect reliability. Conflicts between testimony from investigators, the witness, and other participants in the underlying proceeding often play a significant role in determining how facts are interpreted.
Challenges may arise regarding the admissibility of statements made by the accused, the witness, or investigators. Common issues include:
Ambiguities in definitional language, cross-references to broader perjury statutes, and the scope of what constitutes “procurement” or “inducement” may lead to litigation. Courts may need to interpret statutory terms in light of legislative history, related federal provisions, or prior military appellate decisions, particularly where statutory elements overlap with other misconduct provisions under the UCMJ.
Understanding perjury as a related offense
Obstruction of justice as a companion obstruction offense
Refusal to testify in proceedings involving false statements
False official statements commonly charged alongside testimonial misconduct
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may arise independently of the sentence imposed by a court-martial. A conviction under UCMJ Article 131a, Subornation of Perjury, can lead to secondary impacts that occur through military administrative systems, federal regulations, or civilian institutions, regardless of the punishment adjudged at trial.
A conviction for subornation of perjury may influence a service member’s standing within their branch. Possible outcomes include:
Because subornation of perjury involves dishonesty, it may affect eligibility to obtain or maintain a security clearance. Potential impacts include suspension or revocation of clearance, reassignment away from duties requiring access to classified information, and reduced eligibility for post-service employment in fields that rely on background investigations or trustworthiness assessments.
Convictions under Article 131a generally do not trigger sex offender registration. However, other reporting obligations may arise under federal or state law depending on the nature of related misconduct. Registration requirements are determined by the applicable jurisdiction and not by the UCMJ alone.
The conduct underlying a conviction for subornation of perjury may also violate federal or state laws governing false statements, perjury, or obstruction. This can create exposure to separate civilian criminal proceedings or, in some circumstances, civil liability.
For non-citizens, a conviction involving dishonesty or false statements may have implications for immigration status. Possible effects include admissibility concerns, challenges in maintaining lawful status, or complications in naturalization processes governed by federal immigration law.
During investigations involving UCMJ Article 131a, decisions made in the initial stages often shape the trajectory of the case long before charges are preferred. Early legal representation helps ensure that actions taken during these first steps are informed, documented, and aligned with the service member’s rights.
Military investigations typically begin collecting evidence immediately, including witness statements, documents, and digital material. Early legal involvement can influence how evidence is preserved, how requests for information are handled, and whether statements are recorded with appropriate context. Counsel can also help prevent misinterpretation of documents or communications that investigators obtain at the outset.
Command or law_enforcement interviews often occur before a service member fully understands the allegations or the scope of the inquiry. Without legal guidance, individuals may provide incomplete or inaccurate information, waive rights unintentionally, or respond to questions that are outside the intended investigative focus. These early interviews frequently become key evidence in Article 131a cases.
Command-directed investigations and administrative inquiries may continue even when criminal charges have not been filed. Early decisions—such as whether to participate, provide statements, or respond to taskings—can affect parallel processes including evaluations, assignments, or administrative findings.
Choices made early in the investigation, including consenting to searches, submitting statements, or handling administrative notifications, often have lasting consequences. These actions can influence later court-martial proceedings, rebuttal opportunities, and credibility assessments. Early guidance from a civilian military defense lawyer can help ensure that each decision is made with a full understanding of its long-term implications.
Gonzalez & Waddington is a civilian military defense law firm that represents service members worldwide in matters arising under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The firm focuses on defending clients in complex military criminal cases, including allegations involving false statements, obstruction-related offenses, and other charges that may arise in high_stakes military justice environments.
If you are facing an allegation connected to UCMJ Article 131a, Gonzalez & Waddington can provide guidance on the legal processes involved and discuss options for moving forward. Contact the firm to request a confidential consultation and learn more about available representation.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 131a: Subornation of Perjury cover?
A: Article 131a addresses situations where a service member intentionally persuades, induces, or attempts to influence another person to provide false testimony under oath. The focus is on knowingly encouraging perjury in judicial or official proceedings. The article requires proof that the accused understood the testimony would be false and acted with the purpose of prompting another individual to deliver that false statement in an authorized setting.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 131a: Subornation of Perjury?
A: Maximum punishment may include a dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, reduction in rank, and confinement. The exact penalty depends on case-specific factors such as intent, the significance of the false testimony, and the impact on the proceeding. Sentencing is determined by a court-martial and may vary based on the circumstances and the evidence presented, as well as any aggravating or mitigating information introduced during the process.
Q: Can an allegation under this article lead to administrative separation even without a conviction?
A: Yes. Commanders may initiate administrative separation proceedings if they believe a service member’s conduct, including suspected subornation of perjury, undermines trust or violates standards of military service. Even absent a conviction, the military may rely on available evidence to evaluate whether continued service is appropriate. Administrative processes use a lower standard of proof than a court-martial and can result in separation with various characterization outcomes.
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. A civilian attorney can offer independent guidance and may work alongside appointed counsel. Whether to retain civilian representation depends on the complexity of the case, the nature of the investigation, and personal preference. The decision is voluntary and should be based on the member’s assessment of their situation.
Q: Can a case involving alleged subornation of perjury be handled without a court-martial?
A: In some situations, commanders may address allegations through administrative measures or nonjudicial punishment rather than a court-martial. This depends on the severity of the conduct, the strength of the available evidence, and command discretion. Nonjudicial punishment or administrative action may be considered when the incident appears less serious or when leadership determines that formal judicial proceedings are not necessary or proportionate.
Q: What types of evidence are typically reviewed in a subornation of perjury investigation?
A: Investigators may evaluate witness statements, communications between the accused and the witness, records of prior testimony, and any documentation suggesting an effort to influence statements. They may also examine timelines, motives, and inconsistencies in testimony. Agencies such as military law enforcement or legal offices may conduct interviews and gather materials to determine whether the accused intentionally attempted to prompt another person to provide false sworn information.
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.
