Article 130 UCMJ – Housebreaking – Military Defense Lawyers
UCMJ Military Defense Guide by Gonzalez & Waddington
Article 130 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes housebreaking, defined as unlawfully entering a building or structure with intent to commit a criminal offense inside. Housebreaking is similar to burglary under Article 129, but unlike burglary, it does not require nighttime entry or entry into a dwelling. Housebreaking applies to any structure—barracks, offices, storage facilities, motor pools, shops, gyms, and more.
Housebreaking is frequently misused by military prosecutors in cases involving misunderstandings, barracks confusion, alleged “snooping,” retrieving personal belongings, entering a shared space, and conflicts over access rights. Many allegations arise from breakups, roommate drama, off-base housing disputes, jealousy-fueled accusations, barracks parties, or intoxicated mistakes.
Florida military installations—including NAS Jacksonville, Mayport, Pensacola, Whiting Field, Eglin, Hurlburt Field, Tyndall, Patrick SFB, MacDill, NAS Key West, and NSA Panama City—see a disproportionate number of Article 130 allegations, often tied to nightlife-related incidents, domestic problems, work-center disputes, and barracks-related confusion.
Gonzalez & Waddington defends military personnel worldwide in housebreaking, burglary, and property-entry offenses. We dismantle weak prosecutions by exposing lack of criminal intent, proving consent or access rights, and using digital forensics and cross-examination to reveal the truth behind emotionally driven accusations.
What Article 130 Criminalizes
To violate Article 130, a service member must:
- Enter a building or structure
- Without authorization
- With intent to commit a criminal offense inside
This does not require:
- Nighttime entry
- Breaking something to get in
- A dwelling or inhabited home
Article 130 applies to any structure on- or off-base, including:
- Barracks rooms
- Squad bays
- Work centers
- Offices
- Supply rooms
- Gyms
- Schoolhouses
- Shops or hangars
- Vehicles used as structures
- Storage units
- Warehouses
Elements of Article 130
The prosecution must prove each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. The Accused Entered a Building or Structure
Any level of entry counts—even leaning inside a doorway.
2. The Entry Was Unlawful
Meaning:
- No permission
- Outside the scope of authorized access
- Entry for a different purpose than authorized
3. The Accused Intended to Commit a Criminal Offense Inside
This intent must exist at the time of entry. Intent formed afterward does not qualify.
Failure to prove intent destroys the government’s case.
Housebreaking vs. Burglary
Article 129 – Burglary requires:
- Dwelling house
- Nighttime
- Intent to commit a crime inside
Article 130 – Housebreaking applies when:
- Any structure is entered
- Day or night
- Intent to commit a crime inside
Housebreaking is a broader and more flexible charge often used when burglary cannot be proven.
Maximum Punishments Under Article 130
Housebreaking penalties can be severe:
- Dishonorable discharge
- Confinement up to 10 years
- Total forfeitures
- Reduction to E-1
When paired with other charges (assault, theft, sexual offenses), confinement can increase dramatically.
Why Article 130 Allegations Are Common in Florida
Florida’s military environment results in many housebreaking accusations due to:
- Alcohol-heavy environments (Jacksonville Beach, Miami, Tampa, Pensacola)
- Barracks and shared housing confusion
- Breakups and relationship drama
- Entering the wrong building after drinking
- Accusations during domestic disputes
- Visiting ex-partners without invitation
- Misunderstandings with landlords
- Officer/enlisted social gatherings in off-base apartments
Most Florida 130 cases stem from confusion—not criminal intent.
Common Real-World Article 130 Scenarios
1. Entering a Barracks Room Without Permission
One of the most commonly charged scenarios, often caused by confusion, intoxication, or shared keycards.
2. Returning to Retrieve Personal Property
“Retrieving my stuff” is often mischaracterized as intent to steal.
3. Entering the Wrong Apartment While Drunk
Extremely common in Florida’s nightlife areas. Not criminal if no intent existed.
4. Romantic Breakups
Partners claim the accused “broke in,” even when the accused had shared access.
5. Work-Center Misunderstandings
After-hours entry into offices or supply rooms may trigger accusations.
6. Domestic Disputes
Military spouses or partners often weaponize housebreaking allegations.
7. Entering to Check on an Intoxicated Friend
This good-faith action is frequently misinterpreted.
8. Miscommunication in Shared Housing
Service members believing they had permission to enter.
9. Entering for a Non-Criminal Purpose
E.g., hiding from danger, escaping a threat, or seeking help.
10. Civilian Police Overcharging
Florida police frequently charge burglary/housebreaking for minor conduct.
How Article 130 Investigations Work
Investigations typically involve:
- NCIS / OSI / CID / CGIS
- Local Florida police
- Barracks managers and housing officials
- Witness interviews
- Door lock and access logs
- Digital forensics (texts, DMs, location data)
Frequent Investigative Errors
- Assuming intent without evidence
- No forensic examination of locks or doors
- Failure to gather digital evidence showing prior consent
- Ignoring drunken confusion or misidentification
- Taking one witness’s story as fact
- Not interviewing neutral witnesses
- No timeline reconstruction
Defense Strategies for Article 130 Cases
1. Lack of Intent to Commit a Crime
This is the strongest defense. If you had no intent at entry, it is NOT housebreaking.
2. Consent or Implied Permission
- Shared keys
- Access codes
- Text messages granting entry
- Prior overnight stays
3. Mistaken Entry
Common in Florida after drinking, or when buildings look identical.
4. Self-Defense or Defense of Another
Entry to escape danger is not criminal.
5. Retrieving One’s Own Property
Entering to collect personal items is often lawful.
6. Florida-Specific Defense Approaches
- Tourist vs. military misunderstandings
- Nightlife-driven misidentification
- Barracks room mix-ups
7. Attack Witness Credibility
Jealousy, revenge, gang-ups, or intoxication frequently corrupt testimony.
8. Use Digital Forensics
Location data, DMs, texts, ring cameras, and timestamps often prove innocence.
Pro Tips for Anyone Accused Under Article 130
- Do NOT talk to investigators or command.
- Preserve all texts and DMs involving access/permission.
- Collect witness names immediately.
- Document your timeline and location privately.
- Do NOT delete anything from your phone.
- Avoid discussing the case with peers or roommates.
- Hire a civilian military defense lawyer early.
Related UCMJ Articles
- UCMJ Article Hub
- Article 129 – Burglary
- Article 121 – Larceny & Wrongful Appropriation
- Article 122 – Robbery
- Article 134 – Unlawful Entry
Article 130 UCMJ – Frequently Asked Questions
Can entering the wrong room while drunk be housebreaking?
Not unless prosecutors can prove you intended to commit a crime inside. Accidental entry is NOT housebreaking and is one of the easiest Article 130 defenses.
Is housebreaking always a felony?
Yes. Article 130 is a felony-level offense under military law, carrying up to 10 years of confinement and mandatory discharge.
What if the alleged victim told me I could enter earlier?
Prior consent or a reasonable belief of consent can defeat an Article 130 charge. Many cases collapse once text messages or DMs are analyzed.
Can I be convicted if I didn’t steal anything?
Yes—but prosecutors still must prove you intended to commit a crime inside. Without intent, it is NOT housebreaking.
Why hire Gonzalez & Waddington?
We are globally recognized UCMJ defense lawyers with decades of experience defeating burglary and housebreaking allegations. We expose exaggerations, prove lack of intent, and deconstruct weak government cases using advanced forensic and investigative tactics.
Final Takeaways
Article 130 housebreaking is one of the most overcharged and misunderstood UCMJ offenses. Most cases are rooted in confusion, drunken mistakes, domestic conflict, or misinterpreted intentions—not true criminal entry. With the right defense strategy, many Article 130 cases can be reduced or defeated entirely.
Your silence protects you.
Your lawyer defends you.
Your strategy determines your future.