Table Content
Article 131b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes acts intended to unlawfully influence, impede, or interfere with the administration of military justice. The provision is designed to preserve the integrity of investigations, courts-martial, and other official proceedings. It applies to conduct occurring before, during, or after a formal military investigation or judicial action.
The statute covers a wide range of obstructive acts aimed at undermining lawful proceedings or actions taken under the UCMJ. The conduct typically involves tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or taking steps to hinder investigators. The focus is on whether the act was done with the purpose of affecting the military justice process.
Article 131b applies to all persons subject to the UCMJ, including active-duty service members, certain reservists, and others falling under UCMJ jurisdiction. The provision may also apply to individuals who, though not principals, knowingly assist obstructive conduct.
The offense requires that the accused act knowingly and with the specific intent to influence, impede, or obstruct the due administration of justice. Mere negligence or accidental conduct is insufficient. The government must prove that the accused understood the obstructive nature of the act.
Attempted obstruction is chargeable under Article 80 when the accused takes a substantial step toward committing obstruction with the requisite intent. Conspiracy to obstruct justice may also be charged under Article 81 when two or more individuals agree to engage in obstructive conduct. Accomplice liability arises when an individual aids, abets, or encourages another to commit obstruction, even if not present at the scene.
The government must prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 131b focuses on conduct that intentionally interferes with the administration of justice within the military system, including actions aimed at influencing, impeding, or altering investigative or judicial proceedings.
The mens rea required is a specific intent to obstruct the due administration of justice. The government must show that the accused’s purpose was to influence or interfere with an actual or foreseeable criminal proceeding, not merely that the act had such an effect.
The actus reus consists of a wrongful act that obstructs or tends to obstruct justice. Wrongfulness generally requires conduct without legal justification or excuse. Typical conduct includes attempts to conceal evidence, influence witnesses, or impede official investigations.
Key statutory terms include “criminal proceedings,” which encompasses investigations or actions that the accused has reason to believe are pending or will be initiated. The phrase “due administration of justice” refers broadly to official military investigative, disciplinary, and judicial processes governed by the UCMJ.
Punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) varies based on the date of the alleged offense. The military justice system used traditional maximum punishments before December 27, 2023. For offenses occurring on or after that date, a structured sentencing_category system applies, which assigns confinement ranges and collateral penalties by offense class.
Under the pre_December 27, 2023 framework, Article 131b (Obstruction of Justice) carried a fixed maximum punishment as prescribed in the Manual for Courts_Martial.
For offenses occurring on or after December 27, 2023, Article 131b is assigned to Sentencing Category II under the Military Sentencing Parameters established by Executive Order 14122.
The sentencing_category system differs from the prior model by replacing fixed maximum confinement limits with structured confinement ranges assigned to categories. These categories group offenses by relative severity, ensuring consistent sentencing parameters across similar offenses. Unlike the earlier system, which specified a single maximum term, the category model provides both a minimum of zero and a defined upper limit, allowing members to argue for any lawful sentence within the range. The availability of punitive discharges, reductions, and forfeitures continues to depend on the offense’s category and the nature of the sentence imposed.
Charging decisions under Article 131b typically reflect the specific facts uncovered during an investigation, the direction of the investigative agency, and the command’s assessment of how a service member’s conduct affected the integrity of the justice process. The charge is often applied when actions appear calculated to interfere with reporting, evidence collection, or adjudication of a separate underlying offense.
In practice, Article 131b charges usually arise from concrete, traceable actions that occur shortly after an allegation surfaces or an investigation begins. Typical situations include:
Article 131b cases typically originate when investigators or command authorities notice inconsistencies in witness accounts, unexplained gaps in evidence, or communications suggesting coordinated interference. Command-directed inquiries sometimes uncover obstruction before law-enforcement involvement. Once potential obstruction is detected, agencies such as CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS usually assume control, conducting interviews, digital forensics, and timeline reconstruction to determine intent and impact on the investigative process.
Prosecutors often include Article 131b alongside underlying misconduct charges to capture the full scope of alleged behavior. Charge-stacking may occur when different actions—such as deleting messages and influencing a witness—are treated as distinct obstructive acts. Overlap with Article 107 and Article 81 is common where the same conduct can support multiple theories of criminal liability, allowing the fact-finder to determine which elements are best supported by the evidence.
Prosecutions under Article 131b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice often turn on contested interpretations of the statutory elements, assessments of witness credibility, evidentiary rulings involving statements or physical evidence, and questions of how the obstruction provisions apply to particular investigative or judicial contexts. Litigation typically centers on whether the government can satisfy each required element beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the conduct at issue fits within the scope of the statute.
Disputes frequently arise over whether the government has adequately proven each statutory element of obstruction. Because Article 131b encompasses a range of obstructive behaviors—such as influencing, impeding, or attempting to impede an investigation or judicial proceeding—questions often focus on:
These issues are typically resolved through interpretation of the record and application of precedent rather than contested policy arguments.
Obstruction offenses commonly require proof of a specific intent or knowledge regarding the effect of the conduct on an investigation or proceeding. Litigation may involve disputes over:
Because intent is seldom established through direct evidence, courts often rely on circumstantial proof and contextual factors, making mens rea a central point of contention.
Credibility assessments play a significant role in many Article 131b cases. Investigators, witnesses, or third parties may provide differing accounts of communications, instructions, or actions. Discrepancies can influence findings regarding what conduct occurred, what was said, and how events unfolded. Military judges and fact-finders often evaluate demeanor, consistency, corroboration, and motive in resolving these issues without making categorical determinations about character.
Evidence disputes commonly involve admissibility of recorded communications, text messages, emails, or investigative interviews. Challenges may arise regarding the voluntariness of statements, adherence to rights advisements, the scope of digital searches, or chain-of-custody requirements. Suppression motions can focus on whether law enforcement followed procedural rules or whether probative value outweighs potential prejudice.
Courts occasionally confront ambiguity in terms such as “impede,” “influence,” or “endeavor,” as well as questions about how Article 131b interacts with related provisions, including false statements or conspiracy offenses. Interpretation may require analysis of legislative history, structural context, or precedent addressing overlapping federal obstruction statutes.
General Article provisions often used to capture related misconduct
Perjury offenses that frequently accompany obstruction allegations
Subornation of perjury as a closely connected evidentiary offense
False official statement charges commonly paired with obstruction behavior
Conspiracy where obstruction forms part of a broader agreement to impede justice
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that can arise from a conviction independently of the sentence imposed by a court-martial. These outcomes typically result from military regulations, federal law, or policies of outside agencies and can continue to affect a service member after the court-martial process has concluded.
A conviction for obstruction of justice under Article 131b may influence several administrative determinations. Command authorities may initiate administrative separation based on the underlying misconduct or loss of confidence in the member’s reliability. The characterization of any resulting discharge may be affected by the conviction record. Additionally, the conviction may reduce or eliminate eligibility for promotion or selection for key assignments and could affect the computation or approval of retirement benefits if separation occurs before vesting. Reenlistment eligibility and opportunities for continued military service may also be limited.
Obstruction-related misconduct can raise concerns about judgment, reliability, and adherence to rules, all of which are relevant to security clearance adjudications. A conviction may lead to suspension, revocation, or denial of access to classified information. Loss of clearance can also affect post-service employment in fields that require eligibility to access classified or sensitive government information.
Convictions under Article 131b do not typically trigger sex offender registration. However, certain related conduct might require reporting under federal or state law if it overlaps with registrable offenses. Registration requirements depend on jurisdictional statutes, not military determinations.
The conduct underlying an obstruction of justice conviction may also violate federal or state laws, potentially exposing the individual to separate civilian prosecution. In some circumstances, related actions could lead to civil claims, such as interference with legal processes.
For non-citizens, a conviction for obstruction of justice may affect immigration status, admissibility, or certain naturalization processes if the conduct is deemed relevant under applicable federal standards.
During the investigative phase of a suspected Article 131b obstruction of justice offense, the decisions a service member makes often influence the direction and outcome of the case well before any charges are preferred. This stage shapes the evidentiary record that commanders, investigators, and legal authorities will rely on later.
Military investigators typically begin gathering evidence immediately, including statements, messages, digital files, and documentary materials. Early legal involvement helps ensure that the context of this evidence is understood, that a service member’s rights are protected during collection, and that investigators do not misinterpret or overextend the meaning of early communications or conduct.
Command or law-enforcement interviews often occur before a service member fully understands the specific allegations or the scope of the inquiry. Without informed guidance, a person may provide incomplete or inaccurate information, consent to broad questioning, or make assumptions about the purpose of the interview. These early statements commonly become central pieces of evidence in obstruction-related cases.
Administrative or command-directed investigations can proceed independently of any criminal process. Findings made in these inquiries may influence decisions about potential charges, security clearances, or administrative actions. Early participation without clarity or counsel may shape how these findings are recorded and interpreted.
Choices about providing statements, consenting to searches, or responding to administrative inquiries can affect later stages of a court-martial or administrative action. Civilian military defense lawyers often emphasize that early decisions help define the evidentiary record, which typically remains central throughout an entire case.
Gonzalez & Waddington is a civilian military defense law firm dedicated to representing service members facing allegations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The firm focuses on defending clients in complex military criminal cases worldwide, providing guidance and advocacy grounded in extensive experience with courts-martial, military investigations, and administrative actions. Their attorneys work with Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guard members, and Guardians across all branches.
If you are facing an allegation connected to UCMJ Article 131b or have been notified of a military investigation, Gonzalez & Waddington can provide informed legal guidance. Contact the firm to discuss your situation and explore your options in a confidential consultation.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 131b: Obstruction of Justice cover?
A: Article 131b addresses conduct intended to impede, influence, or interfere with the administration of military justice. This can include actions such as altering evidence, influencing witnesses, or attempting to affect an investigation or legal proceeding through wrongful means. The focus is on whether the conduct was knowingly undertaken with the purpose of obstructing an official process. The article applies across investigative, administrative, and judicial phases within the military justice system.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 131b: Obstruction of Justice?
A: The maximum punishment can include a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for up to five years. Actual penalties vary based on the nature of the conduct, the service member’s duty position, the impact on the military justice process, and any aggravating or mitigating factors. Commanders and courts consider the totality of the circumstances when determining an appropriate sentence if a conviction occurs.
Q: Can an allegation under this article lead to administrative separation even without a conviction?
A: Yes. Commands may initiate administrative separation based on substantiated misconduct or a demonstrated loss of trust, even without a court-martial conviction. Administrative processes operate under a lower standard of proof than criminal proceedings. Depending on the circumstances, the service member may be offered opportunities to respond, appear before a board, or provide evidence, but separation decisions remain within command authority.
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 and court-martial proceedings. Some individuals choose to hire civilian military defense counsel for additional representation or specialized expertise. Whether to engage civilian counsel is a personal decision that may depend on the complexity of the case, potential consequences, and the member’s preferences regarding communication and strategy.
Q: Can an obstruction of justice allegation be handled without a court-martial, such as through administrative action or nonjudicial punishment?
A: Yes. Commands may address alleged obstruction through nonjudicial punishment, administrative counseling, reprimands, or separation actions if they determine that a court-martial is not necessary. The chosen approach depends on the severity of the conduct, the strength of the evidence, and command priorities. These alternative measures can still have professional or career consequences even though they do not result in a criminal conviction.
Q: Which agencies commonly investigate suspected obstruction of justice under Article 131b?
A: Investigations may be conducted by service-specific law enforcement agencies such as CID, NCIS, or OSI, depending on the branch and circumstances. These agencies assess whether a service member attempted to influence witnesses, alter evidence, or hinder an official process. They may coordinate with command legal offices or other investigative bodies to evaluate the facts and determine whether further action is warranted.
Q: What types of evidence are typically considered in an obstruction of justice case?
A: Evidence can include witness statements, electronic communications, recorded conversations, documents, and forensic data. Investigators evaluate whether any actions were intentional and directed at influencing or impeding an official proceeding. Context, timing, and the service member’s knowledge and intent are key considerations. Evidence may also come from related investigations if the alleged obstruction occurred during inquiries into other potential offenses.
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.
