UCMJ Article 82: Solicitation of UCMJ Offenses

What Does Article 82 of the UCMJ Prohibit, and Can a Service Member Be Charged Before Any Offense Is Committed?

UCMJ Article 82 criminalizes soliciting, urging, advising, or commanding another person to commit an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The article covers two categories: solicitation of any UCMJ offense, and solicitation of designated law-of-war offenses. A charge under Article 82 is complete the moment the solicitation occurs, even if the person solicited never acts.

To convict under Article 82, the government must prove the accused solicited or advised a specific person to commit a specific UCMJ offense, and did so with specific intent that the offense be committed. The solicited offense need not be attempted or completed for the charge to stand. Gonzalez & Waddington defends service members facing Article 82 charges at every stage of the military justice process.

Article 82 Penalties and How Gonzalez & Waddington Defends These Cases

Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, Article 82 punishment tracks the offense solicited: solicitation of a capital offense carries up to 20 years confinement, while solicitation of mutiny or sedition (if not committed) is a Category 3 offense carrying 30 to 120 months confinement, a dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and reduction to E-1. A conviction can also trigger administrative separation, loss of retirement eligibility, and permanent damage to a security clearance.

Defending an Article 82 charge requires attacking both the intent element and the specificity of the alleged solicitation, since vague or frustrated speech does not meet the legal standard for an earnest, directed inducement. Michael Waddington, a former Army Senior Defense Counsel, examines the full context of every alleged communication—written, spoken, or electronic—to determine whether the government can establish the required specific intent. For a confidential consultation, call 1-800-921-8607.

Reviewed by Michael Waddington, Founding Partner · Updated November 9, 2026

UCMJ Article 82: Solicitation of UCMJ Offenses

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.

Prohibited Conduct

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:

• Encouraging another service member to desert, steal military property, or commit assault.
• Requesting or directing another person to violate the law of war.
• Attempting to persuade a junior service member to disobey lawful orders.

Who May Be Charged

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.

Mental State Requirements

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.

Related Doctrines

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.

Aggressive Military Defense Lawyers: Gonzalez & Waddington

Watch the military defense lawyers at Gonzalez & Waddington break down how they defend service members worldwide against UCMJ allegations, CID/NCIS/OSI investigations, court-martials, Article 120 cases, administrative separations, and GOMORs. If you’re under investigation or facing charges, this video explains what your rights are and how experienced civilian military counsel can make the difference.

Elements of UCMJ Article 82: Solicitation of UCMJ Offenses

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.

Required Elements

• That the accused solicited or advised another person to commit a specific offense under the UCMJ.
• That the accused intended that the offense solicited be committed.
• That the conduct solicited, if carried out, would constitute an offense under the UCMJ.

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.

Maximum Punishment and Sentencing Exposure

Punishment depends on when the offense was committed. Offenses committed on or before December 27, 2023 are sentenced under the maximum punishments in the Manual for Courts-Martial. Offenses committed after December 27, 2023 are sentenced by a military judge under the sentencing parameters required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 and set out in Executive Order 14103, which added Appendices 12B through 12D to the Manual for Courts-Martial.

Maximum Punishment for Offenses Committed On or Before December 27, 2023

For offenses committed on or before December 27, 2023, the maximum punishments are those set in Part IV of the Manual for Courts-Martial and summarized in its Appendix 12:

• Soliciting espionage: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, life, and reduction to E-1.
• Soliciting desertion, mutiny or sedition, or misbehavior before the enemy: the maximum punishment for the offense solicited if it was committed or attempted; otherwise as set out in Part IV of the Manual for Courts-Martial.
• Soliciting any other offense: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 10 years, and reduction to E-1, or the maximum punishment for the offense solicited, whichever is less.

For commissioned officers, dismissal takes the place of a dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge, and officers cannot be reduced in grade.

Sentencing Parameters for Offenses Committed After December 27, 2023

For offenses committed after December 27, 2023, a military judge sentences the accused within the confinement range for the offense category assigned in Appendix 12C of the Manual for Courts-Martial (2024 ed.). The ranges are set in Appendix 12B (R.C.M. 1002(a)(2)).

• Soliciting espionage: Category 4, 120 to 240 months (10 to 20 years) of confinement.
• Soliciting desertion, mutiny or sedition, or misbehavior before the enemy, if the offense is committed or attempted: uses the category of the underlying offense.
• Soliciting desertion in time of war, if not committed or attempted: no numbered category; sentenced under the Appendix 12D criteria.
• Soliciting desertion, if not committed or attempted: Category 1, 0 to 12 months of confinement.
• Soliciting mutiny or sedition, if not committed or attempted: Category 3, 30 to 120 months (2½ to 10 years) of confinement.
• Soliciting misbehavior before the enemy, if not committed or attempted: Category 3, 30 to 120 months (2½ to 10 years) of confinement.
• Soliciting any other offense: uses the category of the underlying offense.

When the category depends on the underlying offense, the judge applies the parameter, or the criteria, assigned to that offense in Appendix 12C. For criteria offenses, the judge weighs the factors listed for the offense in Appendix 12D and may sentence up to the maximum punishment. If the maximum confinement for the offense is lower than the top of its category range, the lower maximum controls. At a special court-martial, the 12-month jurisdictional maximum serves as the parameter for any Category 3 or higher offense. The judge may sentence outside a range only after finding specific facts that warrant it and stating them in writing on the record. The parameters govern confinement. A punitive discharge, forfeitures, and reduction in grade remain available up to the maximum punishment for the offense. A case referred as capital is sentenced under R.C.M. 1004 instead.

How UCMJ Article 82: Solicitation of UCMJ Offenses Is Commonly Charged

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.

Common Charging Scenarios

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:

• Text messages or social media exchanges urging another service member to obtain or distribute controlled substances.
• Efforts to persuade peers to participate in fraudulent activity, such as falsifying duty status, travel claims, or training records.
• Attempts to involve others in prohibited relationships, financial schemes, or actions that would violate standing orders or regulations.
• Encouragement of junior personnel to violate safety rules or operational directives, especially in deployed or training environments.
• Recruiting or pressuring others to engage in acts that would constitute assault, hazing, or other integrity-related offenses.

Frequently Co-Charged Articles

• Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation): Often paired when the solicitation relates to breaching a specific directive.
• Article 107 (False Official Statements): Commonly added when solicitation occurs alongside falsification of documents or statements.
• Article 112a (Drug Offenses): Frequently co-charged when the solicited act involves illegal drug activity.
• Article 128 (Assault): Used when the accused encourages another to commit violence or threatening conduct.
• Article 81 (Conspiracy): Added when the communication or planning goes beyond solicitation and becomes an agreement.

Investigative Pathways

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.

Charging Trends and Overlap

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.

Common Defenses and Contested Legal Issues

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.

Element-Based Challenges

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:

• Whether the alleged communication qualifies as a solicitation rather than a vague suggestion or ambiguous remark.
• Whether the solicited act itself constitutes a cognizable UCMJ offense.
• Whether the government has sufficiently linked the accused’s conduct to the precise offense charged.

Mens Rea and Intent Issues

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:

• Whether the accused’s statements reflected intentional solicitation or were merely hypothetical, joking, or taken out of context.
• Knowledge of the underlying offense and whether the accused understood the criminal nature of the act being solicited.
• Situations in which recklessness or negligence arguments surface, particularly when the accused claims misunderstanding or lack of awareness of the implications of their statements.

Credibility and Factual Disputes

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 and Suppression Issues

Evidentiary challenges may arise regarding the admissibility of oral or digital communications, law enforcement interviews, or recordings. Common issues include:

• Whether statements were obtained in compliance with Article 31(b) rights advisements.
• The legality of searches and seizures involving electronic devices or messages.
• Authentication of text messages, emails, or social media communications purportedly containing solicitations.

Statutory Interpretation Issues

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.

Related UCMJ Articles

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 Beyond Court-Martial Punishment

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.

Administrative and Career Consequences

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.

Security Clearance and Professional Impact

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.

Registration and Reporting Requirements

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.

Related Civilian Legal Exposure

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.

Immigration and Citizenship Considerations

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.

Why Early Legal Representation Matters

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.

Timing of Evidence Collection

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.

Risks of Early Interviews

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-Driven Investigations

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.

Long-Term Impact of Early Decisions

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.

About Gonzalez & Waddington

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.

How We Help in UCMJ Article 82: Solicitation of UCMJ Offenses

• Defense representation in courts-martial involving allegations of solicitation under UCMJ Article 82.
• Support and guidance during military criminal investigations conducted by CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS.
• Assistance with responses to command-directed inquiries and investigative actions related to suspected solicitation offenses.
• Representation in administrative separation proceedings and other adverse personnel actions connected to alleged violations of Article 82.
• Strategic case assessment to help clients understand the legal standards, potential evidence issues, and procedural rights involved in solicitation allegations.

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.

Frequently Asked Questions

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.

Michael Waddington

A former Army JAG, best-selling author and FIU adjunct law professor, 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

Alexandra González-Waddington is a military and civilian defense attorney with more than 20 years of experience 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.