Article 126 UCMJ – Arson – Military Defense Lawyers
UCMJ Military Defense Guide by Gonzalez & Waddington
Article 126 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes arson—the willful and malicious burning of property. This includes setting fire to military buildings, civilian structures, vehicles, personal property, forests, fields, barracks rooms, trash receptacles, government property, or any other item of value. Arson is one of the highest-level non-homicide offenses under military law, carrying penalties that can exceed 20 years of confinement depending on the circumstances.
Arson cases in the military are often misunderstood or mischarged. Many alleged “arsons” stem from accidents, electrical malfunctions, cooking mishaps, fireworks, smoking materials, candles, equipment failures, negligent behavior, or intoxicated mistakes. Investigators frequently misinterpret fire patterns, assume malicious intent, and charge service members without proper forensic fire analysis.
Florida’s military installations—including NAS Jacksonville, Mayport, Pensacola, Whiting Field, Eglin, Hurlburt, Tyndall, Patrick SFB, MacDill, NAS Key West, and NSA Panama City—see arson allegations arising from barracks fires, accidental burns, vehicle fires, domestic disturbances, backyard bonfires, fireworks, and trash-bin fires in shared housing areas.
Gonzalez & Waddington defends service members worldwide in complex arson and fire-related cases. We work with top fire investigators and forensic experts to dismantle flawed government theories, expose assumptions, and prove when a fire was accidental—not criminal.
What Article 126 Criminalizes
Article 126 prohibits willfully and maliciously setting fire to, burning, or causing to be burned:
- A dwelling or inhabited structure
- A public building
- Military buildings or facilities
- Civilian buildings
- Motor vehicles
- Aircraft or vessels
- Personal property
- Government-owned property
- Grasslands, brush, or forested areas
Arson requires MALICE or wrongful intent. Negligent or accidental fires are NOT arson, though they may be charged under Article 92 or 134 instead.
Types of Arson Under Article 126
1. Aggravated Arson (Property of Another or Habitation)
The most serious form, involving burning of another person’s property or an inhabited building.
2. Simple Arson
Burning property that belongs to the accused or unoccupied structures.
3. Attempted Arson
Lighting materials, preparing accelerants, or attempting ignition without full burn.
4. Reckless or Negligent Fire Setting (often mischarged as arson)
- Fireworks mishaps
- Candle accidents
- Cigarette fires
- Kitchen fires
- Electrical malfunctions
- Space heater accidents
Elements the Government Must Prove
To convict under Article 126, prosecutors must establish:
1. A Structure or Property Was Burned
The fire must have caused charring or damage—not merely smoke or soot.
2. The Accused Set the Fire or Caused It to Be Set
This can include direct ignition or indirect actions that caused fire.
3. The Fire Was Set Willfully and Maliciously
No accident, no negligence—INTENT is mandatory.
4. The Conduct Was Wrongful
Controlled or authorized burns do not qualify.
Maximum Punishments Under Article 126
Arson can result in extremely harsh penalties depending on the type of property burned and whether people were endangered.
Aggravated Arson
- Dishonorable discharge
- Confinement up to 20 years
- Total forfeitures
- Reduction to E-1
Simple Arson
- Confinement up to 5 years
- Bad-conduct discharge
Additional charges—such as attempted murder, damage to military property, or dereliction of duty—can increase sentencing exposure.
Why Article 126 Allegations Are Common in Florida
Florida’s military communities produce a high number of arson-related allegations due to:
- High alcohol usage and bonfire culture
- Fireworks mishaps common on beaches and holidays
- Dense barracks housing with shared kitchens and old wiring
- Lightning strikes and electrical surges misinterpreted as deliberate fires
- Domestic disputes where property damage is blamed on the accused
- Vehicle fires in extreme Florida heat
- Cooking accidents in barracks or on boats
- Florida civilians calling 911 for smoke-related misunderstandings
Most Article 126 cases arise from accidents, negligence, electrical issues, or exaggerated accusations—not actual arson.
Common Real-World Article 126 Scenarios
1. Kitchen Fires
Unattended frying pans, grease fires, stovetop malfunctions, and barracks cooking accidents.
2. Vehicle Fires
Engine overheating, electrical shorts, lithium battery fires, and cigarette ignition.
3. Domestic Disputes
Partner accuses the accused of intentionally burning property during arguments.
4. Bonfires Gone Wrong
Florida beach bonfires or backyard fires spreading unintentionally.
5. Fireworks Accidents
Common during holidays—frequently misinterpreted as deliberate fires.
6. Electrical Malfunctions
Old barracks wiring causing fires blamed on service members.
7. Candle and Incense Mishaps
Often forbidden in barracks, leading to accusations of “willful fire-setting.”
8. Trash Fires
Barracks dumpsters catching fire after cigarette disposal.
9. Weapon or Flare Misuse
Flares, tracer rounds, or pyrotechnics causing unintended fires.
10. Accidental Burns During PT or Field Training
Smoke grenades, heaters, and field stoves involved in unintentional burns.
How Article 126 Investigations Work
Arson investigations rely on “origin and cause” analysis, fire-pattern interpretation, and forensic science. Agencies typically involved include:
- NCIS / OSI / CID / CGIS
- Local Florida fire marshals
- ATF (in large fires or explosions)
- Base Fire Department investigators
- Insurance investigators
Common Investigative Errors We Expose
- Incorrect fire-pattern interpretation
- Ignoring electrical causes
- Lack of accelerant residue analysis
- Assuming arson due to absence of evidence
- No forensic examination of appliances
- Jumping to conclusions based on emotion or property damage
- Failing to test for spontaneous ignition sources
Arson cases often collapse when forensic fire experts testify on behalf of the defense.
Defense Strategies for Article 126 Cases
1. Fire Was Accidental, Not Intentional
- Electrical faults
- Overheated appliances
- Cooking accidents
- Cigarette ignition
2. Attack the “Willful and Malicious” Element
No intent = no arson.
3. Use Independent Fire Investigators
Expert testimony often discredits base fire investigators.
4. Show the Accused Was Not at the Scene
Alibi and digital location evidence frequently exonerate the accused.
5. Florida-Specific Defense Tactics
- Vehicle fires caused by extreme heat
- Lightning strikes mistaken for arson
- Beach fire accidents misinterpreted
- Domestic disputes falsely blamed on service members
6. Prove a Third Party Was Responsible
Roommates, civilians, guests, or even unknown individuals may have caused accidental fires.
7. Challenge Accelerant Claims
Many “accelerant-positive” tests are false positives from common household chemicals.
8. Use Surveillance & Digital Evidence
Camera footage often contradicts government narratives.
Pro Tips for Anyone Accused Under Article 126
- Do NOT speak to fire investigators or NCIS/OSI/CID.
- Preserve photos and videos of the fire scene.
- Identify witnesses immediately.
- Document all electrical issues or equipment problems.
- Do not discuss the fire with coworkers or roommates.
- Avoid social media posts.
- Hire a civilian defense attorney early.
Related UCMJ Articles
- UCMJ Article Hub
- Article 109 – Damage to Private Property
- Article 110 – Hazarding a Vessel
- Article 128 – Assault
- Article 134 – Communicating a Threat
Article 126 UCMJ – Frequently Asked Questions
Is accidental fire the same as arson?
No. Arson requires willful and malicious intent. Cooking mishaps, electrical failures, grease fires, fireworks accidents, and negligence do NOT qualify as arson under Article 126.
Can I be charged with arson if I didn’t start the fire?
Yes, if prosecutors allege you caused it indirectly. But these cases almost always fall apart once proper forensic fire analysis is conducted.
Do investigators often misinterpret fire evidence?
Yes. Base investigators frequently misread burn patterns, accelerant residue, and ignition points. Professional fire investigators often contradict government findings.
Can a domestic dispute lead to arson charges?
Yes. Partners sometimes falsely accuse service members of “burning something on purpose” during heated arguments. These cases are highly defensible once full context is revealed.
Why hire Gonzalez & Waddington?
We are global leaders in violent-offense defense with decades of courtroom experience. Our team uses independent fire investigators, forensic science, and powerful cross-examination to dismantle weak arson allegations.
Final Takeaways
Article 126 arson accusations often arise from accidents, misunderstandings, or flawed investigations—not intentional wrongdoing. With expert forensic fire analysis, aggressive cross-examination, and the right legal strategy, many arson charges can be reduced or defeated entirely.
Your silence protects you.
Your lawyer defends you.
Your strategy secures your future.