Table Content
Article 82 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes the act of soliciting another person to commit specific offenses under the UCMJ. The article covers two primary categories: solicitation to commit an offense punishable by the UCMJ, and solicitation to commit a designated offense under the law of war. The statute is designed to address the dangers posed by encouraging, persuading, or commanding others to violate military law.
The offense consists of intentionally asking, urging, advising, persuading, or otherwise attempting to induce another individual to commit a UCMJ offense. The solicitation itself is punishable even if the solicited offense is never attempted or completed. The focus is on the actor’s communication and the intent behind it.
Examples of conduct covered include:
Article 82 applies to anyone subject to the UCMJ, including active-duty service members, certain reservists on duty status, and others as defined in Article 2. The person solicited may be a service member or, in some circumstances, a civilian subject to the UCMJ for specific offenses. Liability does not depend on the solicited person’s capacity to commit the offense.
The offense requires specific intent. The accused must intentionally solicit another person and intend that the solicited offense be committed. Negligence or recklessness is insufficient to establish guilt under Article 82.
Solicitation is a standalone inchoate offense and does not require proof of conspiracy or attempt. However, solicitation may coexist with conspiracy if an agreement to commit the underlying offense is eventually reached. Accomplice liability does not apply unless the solicited offense is actually carried out and the accused plays a further role beyond solicitation.
The government must prove each element of solicitation beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements define the specific mental state and conduct required to establish liability under Article 82 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The mens rea for solicitation is purposeful intent: the accused must have actively intended that the solicited offense be carried out. Mere discussion, expression of desire, or abstract advocacy is insufficient without a demonstrated intent to bring about the commission of an enumerated offense.
The actus reus consists of the act of solicitation itself, which may be expressed through words or conduct that clearly amount to urging, advising, commanding, or otherwise attempting to persuade another to commit the underlying offense. The solicitation must be directed at a specific person, and the communication must be more than vague or generalized encouragement.
Article 82 requires that the offense solicited be one punishable under the UCMJ. The underlying offense need not be attempted or completed; its substantive elements matter only to the extent that, if carried out as urged, the conduct would constitute a recognized UCMJ violation. The term “solicitation” encompasses intentional efforts to induce another to engage in prohibited conduct, regardless of whether the solicitation is successful.
Punishment for violations of Article 82, Solicitation, varies depending on the date of the alleged offense. The Uniform Code of Military Justice currently uses two sentencing frameworks: the traditional maximum_punishment model for offenses committed before December 27, 2023, and the sentencing_category system for offenses committed on or after that date.
Under the pre_December 27, 2023 system, Article 82 authorized punishment based on the offense that the accused allegedly solicited.
Under the post_December 27, 2023 sentencing system, Article 82 is not assigned a fixed sentencing category. Instead, its punishment continues to track the offense that was solicited. The sentencing category and confinement range are determined by the category of the underlying offense.
Under the new system, sentencing categories standardize confinement ranges across offenses and limit judicial discretion to the ranges set for each category. This differs from the prior model, which relied on a standalone maximum punishment for each offense. Article 82 functions as an exception because its sentencing exposure is derivative: it depends on the offense that the accused is alleged to have solicited.
Charging decisions involving solicitation under Article 82 generally reflect the specific fact pattern uncovered during an investigation, the scope of witness statements, digital evidence, and the degree of command interest. Commanders and prosecutors tend to focus on whether the service member’s actions demonstrate an intent to persuade another to commit a clearly identifiable UCMJ offense, making contextual details central to how the charge is framed.
Solicitation charges most often emerge from situations where a service member’s communications or conduct appear to encourage another individual to participate in misconduct. Typical cases include:
Cases typically begin with reports from peers, supervisors, or bystanders who observe or receive concerning communications. Digital evidence—messages, social media posts, or call logs—often initiates or shapes the inquiry. Commands may start with a preliminary inquiry or commander-directed investigation to determine whether law-enforcement referral is required. When the alleged solicitation involves drugs, violence, or broader misconduct, investigative agencies such as CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS frequently conduct structured interviews, collect electronic records, and coordinate with command legal offices to refine the scope of potential charges.
Prosecutors often use Article 82 alongside overlapping articles to present alternative theories, particularly when the evidence could support multiple interpretations of intent. Charge-stacking can occur when the underlying offense, attempted offense, conspiracy, and solicitation each appear viable based on communications or actions. Overlap also arises where solicitation merges with preparatory behavior, leading to parallel charges that reflect different stages of conduct within the same sequence of events.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 82, which criminalizes solicitation of UCMJ offenses, often hinge on whether the government can establish each statutory element beyond a reasonable doubt. Litigation typically centers on interpretive questions, the reliability of testimonial and documentary evidence, and the proper application of evidentiary rules. These cases commonly involve disputes over intent, the nature of the solicitation, and the sufficiency of corroboration.
Controversy frequently arises over whether the government has met its burden on one or more required elements. Because solicitation charges depend on proof that the accused intentionally sought another person to commit a specific UCMJ offense, disputes often focus on:
Mens rea is commonly contested in Article 82 prosecutions because the statute requires proof that the accused had the specific intent to encourage or induce another person to commit an offense. Litigation often examines:
Cases frequently turn on credibility assessments involving witnesses, complainants, or investigators. Discrepancies in recollections, motivations of informants, or inconsistencies between written statements and live testimony can affect the weight of the evidence. Such disputes often lead to fact-intensive inquiries into the circumstances surrounding the alleged solicitation.
Evidentiary challenges may arise regarding the admissibility of oral or digital communications, law enforcement interviews, or recordings. Common issues include:
Ambiguities in statutory language, definitions of solicitation, and cross-referenced offenses frequently lead to interpretive disputes. Courts may need to determine the scope of the solicitation provision, how it interacts with attempts or conspiracy statutes, and the degree of specificity required in charging documents.
Conspiracy charges that often accompany solicitation allegations
Attempt liability frequently evaluated alongside solicitation
Principal liability concepts related to encouraging or causing offenses
General Article provisions sometimes used when solicitation involves broader misconduct
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may arise from a conviction independently of any sentence imposed by a court-martial. These outcomes are generally governed by service regulations, federal or state law, and professional standards, and they may continue to affect a service member after the completion of judicial punishment.
A conviction under UCMJ Article 82 for the solicitation of UCMJ offenses may influence several administrative determinations. Command authorities may initiate administrative separation based on misconduct, and the characterization of service can be affected, potentially resulting in a general or other-than-honorable discharge. Career progression may also be impacted; a conviction can limit eligibility for reenlistment, promotion, advanced training, or certain duty assignments. In some cases, it may affect retirement eligibility or the ability to complete a full military career, depending on applicable service policies.
A conviction may trigger a review of an individual’s security clearance or eligibility for access to classified information. Adjudicators consider factors such as reliability, judgment, and adherence to law and regulation. Loss or suspension of clearance can further limit job assignments or career pathways. After separation, reduced clearance eligibility may affect civilian employment with defense contractors or other positions that require federal background investigations.
Convictions under Article 82 generally do not trigger sex offender registration unless the underlying solicited offense is one that federal or state law defines as a registerable offense. Registration obligations, when applicable, are determined by federal statutes and the individual requirements of each state.
The conduct underlying the solicitation may also constitute a violation of federal or state criminal law. In such cases, civilian authorities may pursue separate investigations or charges. Additionally, certain actions may expose an individual to civil liability, depending on the nature of the conduct and applicable jurisdiction.
Non-citizens or naturalized service members may face immigration-related consequences if the underlying conduct falls within categories affecting admissibility, deportability, or naturalization eligibility. These outcomes depend on federal immigration law and the specific facts of the case.
During the investigative phase of an allegation under UCMJ Article 82, the decisions a service member makes can influence how the case develops long before any charges are preferred. Investigators, commanders, and legal personnel begin forming assessments early, and those assessments often shape the trajectory of later proceedings.
Military investigators typically begin collecting evidence immediately after a complaint or concern is raised. Statements, documents, electronic records, and command communications may be gathered before a service member is aware of the details. Early legal involvement helps ensure that evidence is accurately preserved, that ambiguous information is clarified, and that the service member does not inadvertently create or reinforce unfavorable interpretations.
Interviews with command representatives or law-enforcement agents often occur before the service member fully understands the allegation or the scope of the investigation. Without legal guidance, a service member may provide incomplete or inconsistent information, consent to processes they are not required to accept, or misinterpret the intent of questioning. Civilian military defense lawyers can assist in identifying these risks and advising on how to navigate them.
Command-directed investigations and administrative inquiries may move forward regardless of whether criminal charges are anticipated. Early responses during these processes, including participation in interviews or provision of documents, can influence command perceptions and administrative outcomes. Legal guidance helps ensure the service member understands the potential implications of each step.
Choices made early—such as providing statements, consenting to searches, or responding to administrative requests—can have effects throughout later proceedings. These actions may appear in investigative files, affect credibility assessments, or shape the course of both court-martial actions and administrative measures. Understanding these long-term consequences helps a service member navigate the process more effectively.
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 facing courts-martial, investigations, and administrative actions, providing guidance tailored to the unique demands of the military justice system. Their experience covers a broad range of UCMJ offenses, including matters involving UCMJ Article 82.
If you are facing allegations under UCMJ Article 82 or anticipate involvement in an investigation, Gonzalez & Waddington can discuss your situation and outline available legal options. Contact the firm to arrange a confidential consultation and learn more about the defense services they provide.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 82: Solicitation of UCMJ Offenses cover?
A: Article 82 applies when a service member intentionally urges, advises, or otherwise attempts to persuade another person to commit an offense under the UCMJ. The article focuses on the act of solicitation itself, regardless of whether the encouraged offense is actually carried out. Investigators and commanders evaluate the intent, the nature of the communication, and whether the solicitation was directed toward conduct prohibited by military law.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 82: Solicitation of UCMJ Offenses?
A: Maximum punishment depends on the offense that was solicited. If the solicited offense carries a severe penalty, the punishment for solicitation may be correspondingly significant, though it generally does not exceed the maximum punishment for the underlying offense. Potential consequences can include confinement, reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay, and a punitive discharge, depending on the case and the adjudging authority.
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 or patterns of behavior, even in the absence of a court-martial conviction. Administrative processes use a lower standard of proof than judicial proceedings. As a result, a service member may face career-impacting actions such as separation boards, reassignment, or loss of certain opportunities based on the commander’s assessment of the available evidence.
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 investigations and potential proceedings. Some individuals also consult civilian defense counsel to obtain additional perspective or assistance. A civilian attorney may help analyze communications, intent, and the elements of solicitation, but the choice depends on the service member’s circumstances, resources, and preference for additional legal support.
Q: Can an Article 82 allegation be handled without a court-martial, such as through administrative action or nonjudicial punishment?
A: Yes. Depending on the severity of the alleged solicitation and the surrounding facts, commanders may choose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, administrative counseling, or other corrective actions instead of pursuing a court-martial. These alternatives typically involve lower levels of proof and more limited penalties, but they can still affect a service member’s record, duties, and overall career trajectory.
Q: Which investigative agencies commonly handle Article 82 allegations?
A: Allegations of solicitation may be investigated by agencies such as CID, NCIS, or OSI, depending on the service branch and the nature of the underlying offense. These agencies typically examine digital communications, witness statements, and contextual factors to determine whether a service member intentionally encouraged another person to engage in prohibited conduct. Commanders may also conduct preliminary inquiries before deciding whether to involve specialized investigators.
Q: What types of evidence are often central in an Article 82 investigation?
A: Investigations often focus on communications such as text messages, social media interactions, emails, or in-person statements. Investigators look for clear indications of intent to encourage a specific UCMJ violation. They also evaluate the surrounding circumstances, the relationship between the parties, and whether the communication could reasonably be interpreted as urging misconduct. Context and corroborating information play a significant role in determining how statements are interpreted.
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.
