Article 107 UCMJ – False Official Statement – Military Defense Lawyers

UCMJ Military Defense Guide by Gonzalez & Waddington

Article 107 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is one of the most deceptively simple—and most dangerous—charges in the military. Unlike violent crimes or drug allegations, Article 107 does not require physical evidence, forensic proof, eyewitnesses, or even an actual “lie.” Instead, nearly any statement can be twisted into a “false official statement” accusation, especially when investigators, command members, or SARC/Victim Advocates believe a service member is hiding something or refusing to “cooperate.”

Article 107 is often added to other charges such as Article 120 (sexual assault), Article 128 (assault), Article 121 (larceny/fraud), Article 112a (drugs), or Article 92 (failure to obey). It is also used as a standalone charge against service members who simply misremembered events, made a mistake while stressed, or tried to answer a question without legal counsel present.

False official statement charges appear in every branch—but are especially common in high-tempo states like Florida, where young service members, alcohol-heavy environments, and aggressive investigative cultures at NAS Jacksonville, Mayport, Pensacola, Whiting Field, Eglin, Hurlburt, Tyndall, Patrick SFB, MacDill AFB, NSA Panama City, NAS Key West, and all Coast Guard sectors lead to frequent interactions with law enforcement and command investigations.

Gonzalez & Waddington, Attorneys at Law is one of the top military defense firms in the world. We routinely dismantle Article 107 cases by exposing investigator bias, inconsistent questioning, poor documentation, psychological pressure tactics, and command overreach. Most Article 107 cases fall apart once we force prosecutors to prove intent—something they seldom can do.

➤ Request a Confidential Article 107 Defense Consultation

What Is Article 107 UCMJ?

Article 107 prohibits making any “false official statement” with intent to deceive. This includes:

• Oral statements
• Written statements
• Electronic communications (texts, DMs, emails)
• Statements to investigators (NCIS, OSI, CID, CGIS)
• Statements to command members or supervisors
• Statements on counseling forms (Page 11, CG-3307, DA 4856, etc.)

A service member can be charged even when the statement is technically true if investigators allege it was “misleading” or “incomplete.” Article 107 is extremely broad—prosecutors use it as a pressure tactic.

Elements of Article 107 – What the Government Must Prove

To convict, the prosecution must prove:

1. A Statement Was Made

• Verbal, written, or electronic
• Formal or informal
• Made to any official authority

2. The Statement Was “Official”

A statement is “official” if:

• It relates to a military duty
• It is made to someone performing an official function
• It affects a government record, investigation, or action

3. The Statement Was False

• Incorrect
• Incomplete
• Misleading
• Misremembered

4. The Statement Was Made With Intent to Deceive

This is the key element—and the most difficult for prosecutors to prove.

Maximum Punishments Under Article 107

Penalties vary depending on the nature of the falsehood, but punishments can include:

• Dishonorable discharge
• Bad-conduct discharge
• Confinement up to 5 years
• Total forfeitures
• Reduction to E-1

Article 107 often triggers additional punishment such as separation boards, BOIs, loss of clearance, and destroyed promotions.

Why Article 107 Allegations Are Extremely Common in Florida

Florida’s unique environment produces a high volume of false official statement charges due to:

• Frequent interactions with Florida police at beaches and nightlife areas
• Alcohol-driven misunderstandings
• Training commands with strict administrative expectations
• Commands eager to punish “lying” even when misremembered
• NCIS, OSI, CID, and CGIS pressuring suspects
• Coast Guard cutter operations where documentation errors occur
• Barracks roommate conflicts leading to disputed statements
• Relationship disputes and domestic arguments

Many Article 107 cases in Florida involve incorrect timelines, unclear memory, or pressured statements—not intentional deception.

Common Real-World Article 107 Scenarios

1. Misremembered Events

• Accused tells investigators what they recall, but details are off
• Later statements or evidence contradict minor details

2. NCIS/OSI/CID Interrogation Traps

• Investigators ask confusing or repetitive questions
• Small inconsistencies are labeled “lies”
• Suspect said “I don’t remember,” which becomes “untruthful”

3. Domestic Disputes

• Statements made under emotional stress
• Partners recant but command pursues 107 anyway

4. Barracks Roommate Drama

• Conflicting stories interpreted as lies

5. Administrative Paperwork Errors

• Wrong date entered
• Incorrect dependent location
• Mistaken duty location or time entries

6. Miscommunication with Supervisors

• Giving incorrect information unintentionally

7. Fear-Induced Statements

• Service members pressured to “clear things up”
• Statements given without legal counsel

How Article 107 Investigations Work

False official statement investigations involve:

• NCIS (Navy/Marine Corps)
• OSI (Air Force/Space Force)
• CID (Army)
• CGIS (Coast Guard)
• Civilian police in Florida
• Command investigations (JAGMAN, 15-6, CDI)

Investigation Weaknesses We Exploit

• Lack of proof of intent
• Inconsistent investigator notes
• No recording of interviews
• Ambiguous or misleading questioning
• Accused was intoxicated or stressed
• Accused corrected statement voluntarily (which negates intent)

Most Article 107 cases fall apart when the defense demands proof of intentional deception.

How Gonzalez & Waddington Defends Article 107 Cases

Our defense strategy focuses on destroying the government’s ability to prove intent and showing the accused acted honestly, confused, pressured, or inconsistently—not deceitfully.

1. No Intent to Deceive

• Stress, confusion, trauma, or intoxication
• Mistaken memory
• Complex or unclear questions
• Language barriers
• Accidentally giving an incorrect answer

2. Investigator Misconduct

• Leading questions
• Selective interpretation of statements
• Confirmation bias

3. Recorded vs. Unrecorded Interviews

If an interview wasn’t recorded, we challenge everything.

4. Memory & Psychological Science

• Alcohol-induced memory gaps
• Stress-induced recall errors
• Misremembered timelines

5. Florida-Specific Defense Strategies

• High-pressure investigations at training commands
• Alcohol-driven misunderstandings near beaches
• Domestic disputes misinterpreting statements
• Civilian-police reports later contradicted by video

We frequently secure dismissals, charge reductions, and full acquittals in Article 107 cases.

Pro Tips for Anyone Accused of Article 107 UCMJ Violations

• Do NOT talk to investigators.
• Do NOT try to “clear up” misunderstandings.
• Do NOT write statements for command.
• Document your memory immediately.
• Preserve digital evidence.
• Ask for legal counsel early.
• Do NOT respond to questions during emotional stress.
• Never guess—say “I don’t recall” if uncertain.
• Hire civilian defense counsel immediately.

➤ Contact an Article 107 Defense Lawyer Today

Article 107 UCMJ – Frequently Asked Questions