Table Content
Article 131c of the Uniform Code of Military Justice addresses the wrongful concealment of a “serious offense.” The article penalizes deliberate acts or omissions that hide another person’s serious offense from authorities. It is intended to preserve the integrity of military justice by ensuring that serious misconduct is reported promptly.
The statute makes it an offense to knowingly conceal a serious offense committed by another person. Concealment may include withholding information, failing to report when under a duty to do so, or taking affirmative steps to prevent detection. The underlying offense must meet the UCMJ definition of a “serious offense,” generally meaning conduct punishable by confinement for more than one year.
Any person subject to the UCMJ may be charged under Article 131c. This includes service members on active duty, certain reservists, and others subject to military jurisdiction at the time of the alleged misconduct.
Article 131c requires actual knowledge of the serious offense. It also requires intent to conceal, meaning the accused must knowingly act or fail to act for the purpose of preventing discovery. Negligence or mere failure to report without intent to conceal is generally insufficient.
Attempt liability does not typically apply because misprision centers on completed concealment conduct. Conspiracy liability may arise if the accused agrees with others to conceal a serious offense. Accomplice liability is uncommon, as misprision is distinct from aiding or abetting the underlying offense, but may be charged separately if conduct links the accused to the principal crime itself.
The government must establish each element of misprision of a serious offense beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements define the precise factual and mental components that must be proven to secure a lawful conviction under Article 131c.
The offense requires proof that the accused possessed actual knowledge of the underlying serious offense. Constructive knowledge or mere suspicion is insufficient. The mens rea therefore centers on awareness that a qualifying offense occurred and a conscious decision not to disclose it.
The actus reus consists of two components: omission and commission. First, the accused must have deliberately failed to make timely notification to proper military or civil authorities. Second, the accused must have engaged in some affirmative act designed to hide, obscure, or otherwise prevent discovery of the offense. Mere silence, without concealment, does not satisfy the statutory requirement.
A “serious offense” is defined by the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts-Martial as an offense for which the maximum authorized punishment includes confinement for more than one year. The term “concealment” encompasses any conduct that materially hinders or attempts to hinder detection or investigation, whether physical, verbal, or through falsified information.
Punishment for violations of Article 131c, Misprision of a Serious Offense, is determined by the version of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Manual for Courts-Martial applicable to the date of the alleged offense. Offenses committed before December 27, 2023 are governed by the traditional maximum_punishment model, while offenses committed on or after that date fall under the revised sentencing framework established by the Military Justice Act amendments.
Under the pre_December 27, 2023 rules, Article 131c carried a fixed maximum punishment as prescribed in the Manual for Courts-Martial. The maximum authorized punishment included:
These punishments represented ceiling values, and the sentencing authority determined the exact adjudged sentence within those limits.
For offenses committed on or after December 27, 2023, Article 131c falls within the structured sentencing categories established in the revised Part II of the Manual for Courts-Martial. Misprision of a Serious Offense aligns with Sentencing Category 3, which applies to offenses historically carrying a maximum confinement term of more than 2 years but not more than 5 years.
Under the category system, each offense is assigned a sentencing range rather than a single maximum. Sentencing authorities select a confinement term within the defined range, providing greater structure and uniformity than the prior model. Unlike the earlier framework, which permitted any confinement sentence up to the maximum, the category system narrows the permissible range for each offense while retaining judicial discretion within that range.
In practice, charging decisions under Article 131c are shaped by the underlying fact pattern, the route through which misconduct comes to command attention, and the discretion exercised by commanders and prosecutors. The offense is typically used when a service member is not alleged to have participated in the serious offense itself but is believed to have knowingly concealed it from authorities.
Article 131c allegations usually arise from situations where a service member becomes aware of significant misconduct within their unit or peer group and takes steps that appear to suppress or withhold that information. Common scenarios include:
Cases commonly begin with a routine report of the underlying serious offense. Once investigators from CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS identify discrepancies in witness statements or discover evidence of intentional nondisclosure, potential misprision issues emerge. Command-directed investigations or preliminary inquiries often surface the initial concerns, which are then referred to law-enforcement agencies for formal interviews, digital evidence collection, and corroborating witness statements. These agencies typically document timelines of knowledge and reporting behavior to determine whether the elements of Article 131c are met.
Article 131c is frequently used as a complementary charge when prosecutors observe conduct that falls short of direct participation but still undermines investigative integrity. Charge-stacking occurs when overlapping statutes capture similar behavior, particularly with obstruction or false statement offenses. Commands and prosecutors often charge multiple theories in the alternative, allowing fact-finders to assess the degree of nondisclosure or interference. The charge is typically reserved for fact patterns demonstrating clear knowledge of a serious offense combined with an identifiable act or omission contributing to its concealment.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 131c, misprision of a serious offense, often hinge on the government’s ability to establish each statutory element with reliable evidence. Litigation commonly focuses on factual disputes, the credibility of witnesses, admissibility of key evidence, and interpretation of statutory language defining what constitutes misprision and a “serious offense.”
Defense arguments frequently center on whether the government has met its burden on specific elements of Article 131c. These challenges may involve disputes over:
Such issues generally require careful examination of the record to determine whether the evidence supports each statutory requirement rather than merely inferring the existence of an element.
Knowledge and intent are common areas of dispute in misprision cases because the offense requires more than passive awareness. Contested issues often involve whether the accused truly knew of the underlying offense, whether the accused intended to conceal it, and how circumstantial evidence should be weighed in establishing mental state. In some cases, the parties disagree over whether the government must show purposeful concealment or whether a lesser mental state is sufficient, depending on how the statute is interpreted and applied to the underlying conduct.
Because misprision often involves events occurring outside formal investigative channels, credibility assessments play a significant role. Disputes may arise over the reliability of witness statements, the consistency of accounts over time, and whether investigators accurately documented interviews or observations. Contested credibility can affect the factfinder’s evaluation of what the accused knew and what actions were taken in response.
Litigation under Article 131c commonly involves evidentiary disputes such as the admissibility of statements made by the accused, the scope and lawfulness of searches, and the handling of digital evidence. Issues surrounding authentication of electronic communications, retention of investigative records, and potential hearsay statements can also influence the admissibility and weight of the government’s evidence.
Ambiguities in statutory language, including the definition of “serious offense,” the scope of “concealment,” and the relationship between Article 131c and other UCMJ provisions, can lead to litigation over proper interpretation. Courts may be required to analyze legislative history, textual structure, and cross-referenced articles to determine how broadly or narrowly the statute should be applied.
Overview of offenses falling under the UCMJ General Article
Obstruction of justice issues commonly connected to misprision cases
Refusal to testify as a closely related interference offense
False official statements frequently accompanying concealment offenses
Conspiracy charges that may arise when multiple individuals conceal serious crimes
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may arise independently of any sentence imposed by a court-martial. These consequences can result from military regulations, federal or state laws, or professional standards and may continue to affect a service member after completion of judicial punishment.
A conviction under Article 131c for misprision of a serious offense may influence various administrative and career-related actions. Command authorities may initiate administrative separation based on the underlying misconduct, and the characterization of service could range from honorable to under other than honorable conditions depending on the full circumstances. The conviction may also limit eligibility for promotion due to diminished confidence in reliability or judgment. Retirement eligibility, particularly when based on length of service, may be affected if administrative action interrupts continued service. Future accession or reenlistment may be restricted if the conviction is coded as a disqualifying factor under service-specific regulations.
This type of conviction may affect eligibility to hold or maintain a security clearance. Adjudicators may view the failure to report a serious offense as a concern related to reliability, trustworthiness, or integrity. Loss or suspension of clearance can affect continued performance in clearance-requiring roles and may influence post-service employment opportunities with government contractors or agencies that require favorable clearance determinations.
Conviction under Article 131c generally does not trigger sex offender registration by itself because it does not involve conduct defined as a registrable offense under federal law. However, reporting obligations may arise if the underlying serious offense involved conduct that is separately subject to registration. Registration requirements vary by state and federal statute.
The same conduct underlying the misprision conviction may, in some cases, create exposure to federal or state prosecution if civilian authorities pursue charges based on their own criminal statutes. Additionally, civil liability could arise if the underlying offense caused harm and the failure to report contributed to damages.
For non-citizens or naturalized service members, a conviction may have implications for immigration status. Certain offenses or underlying conduct can affect admissibility, adjustment of status, or the ability to demonstrate good moral character for naturalization. Effects depend on federal immigration law and the specific facts of the case.
During the investigative phase of a suspected UCMJ Article 131c violation, many key decisions occur before any charges are preferred. These early steps often influence what information is collected, how conduct is interpreted, and what options remain available as the case progresses.
Military investigators typically begin gathering evidence immediately after an allegation arises. Statements, electronic data, and unit records are often collected within the first days of an inquiry. Early legal involvement can help ensure that evidence is properly preserved, that statements are not made without full understanding of their implications, and that investigators do not misinterpret documents or digital materials. Lawyers experienced in military practice, including civilian military defense lawyers, can help clarify evidentiary issues before they become fixed in the investigative record.
Interviews with command representatives, military law enforcement, or inspectors often occur before a service member has a full picture of the allegations. Without legal guidance, a member may provide incomplete or inaccurate information, consent to broad questioning, or inadvertently address topics outside the intended scope.
Commands may initiate administrative inquiries or command-directed investigations that proceed independently of any criminal process. Early decisions in these administrative settings—such as responses to taskings or participation in fact-finding—can later influence disciplinary actions.
Choices made at the outset, including providing statements, consenting to searches, or responding to administrative inquiries, can shape the trajectory of both judicial and administrative outcomes. These early actions often remain part of the record throughout any subsequent proceedings.
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 military criminal matters, helping them navigate the unique procedures and challenges associated with courts-martial, investigations, and administrative actions across all U.S. military branches.
If you are facing allegations or an investigation related to UCMJ Article 131c, Gonzalez & Waddington can provide guidance on the military justice process and your available options. For more information or to discuss your situation, you may contact the firm to request a confidential consultation.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 131c: Misprision of a Serious Offense cover?
A: Article 131c addresses situations where a service member, knowing that another individual committed a serious offense under the UCMJ, intentionally conceals that information and fails to promptly report it to proper authorities. The article focuses on deliberate concealment rather than mere failure to report. Investigators typically examine the member’s knowledge, actions, and intent to determine whether the conduct rises to the level of misprision as defined by military law.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 131c: Misprision of a Serious Offense?
A: The maximum punishment for a violation of Article 131c can include a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for up to three years. Actual sentencing depends on the circumstances of the case, the seriousness of the underlying offense, the level of concealment, and evidence presented during proceedings. Military judges or court-martial panels determine the appropriate sentence within the authorized limits.
Q: Can an allegation under this article lead to administrative separation even without a conviction?
A: Yes. Commanders have authority to initiate administrative separation based on substantiated misconduct, even when a court-martial conviction has not occurred. Administrative actions rely on a lower standard of proof than criminal proceedings. Depending on the evidence gathered during the investigation, a command may consider separation, reassignment, or other administrative measures to address concerns about reliability, judgment, or adherence to military standards.
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 military defense attorneys for additional support or specialized experience. Whether to retain civilian counsel depends on the complexity of the investigation, potential exposure to punitive action, and personal preference. An attorney can help evaluate evidence, prepare statements, and guide the member through interviews or other investigative steps.
Q: Can a case under Article 131c be handled without a court-martial, such as through administrative action or nonjudicial punishment?
A: Yes. Commands may address alleged misprision through nonjudicial punishment, counseling, reprimands, or administrative measures when they determine these options are appropriate. The decision depends on factors such as the seriousness of the underlying offense, the degree of concealment, the service member’s record, and available evidence. Not all cases involving suspected non-reporting automatically proceed to court-martial, and commanders assess which forum best serves good order and discipline.
Q: Which investigative agencies typically examine allegations of misprision under Article 131c?
A: Allegations may be investigated by military law enforcement agencies such as CID, NCIS, or OSI, depending on the service branch. These agencies evaluate whether the member had actual knowledge of the serious offense and took deliberate steps to conceal it. Investigators may review communications, witness statements, command reports, and timelines to establish what the individual knew and when that knowledge was obtained.
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.
