Article 131 UCMJ – Perjury – Military Defense Lawyers

UCMJ Military Defense Guide by Gonzalez & Waddington

Article 131 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes perjury — knowingly making a false statement under oath, in an official judicial or administrative proceeding, with the intent to mislead. It is one of the most serious non-violent offenses in military law because it strikes at the credibility of witnesses, the integrity of investigations, and the military justice system itself.

However, Article 131 is also one of the most misunderstood and overcharged offenses. Many service members are falsely accused of perjury based on misremembered events, confusion, imprecise language, stress, intoxication, trauma, or simply being wrong. Perjury requires proof of intentional deception — not mistakes. Commands and investigators often conflate the two.

Perjury charges frequently arise during:

• Court-martial testimony
• Article 32 hearings
• Administrative separation boards
• Officer Boards of Inquiry (BOI)
• NCIS/OSI/CID/CGIS interviews
• Command investigations (15-6, JAGMAN, CDI)

Florida produces a disproportionate number of Article 131 cases due to high-volume investigations at bases such as NAS Jacksonville, Mayport, Pensacola, Whiting Field, Eglin, Hurlburt, Tyndall, Patrick SFB, MacDill AFB, and Coast Guard sectors. In many situations, commands mislabel confusion or inconsistencies as “perjury” even when NO intentional lie occurred.

Gonzalez & Waddington, Attorneys at Law is one of the nation’s most experienced military defense firms, known for dismantling perjury allegations through aggressive cross-examination, forensic timeline reconstruction, and exposing flaws in government assumptions. We defend service members worldwide and across every major Florida installation.

➤ Request a Confidential Article 131 Defense Consultation

What Is Article 131 UCMJ?

Perjury under Article 131 applies when a service member knowingly makes a false statement under oath during any official proceeding. It does NOT apply to casual statements, informal questioning, or unsworn interviews — although other articles (such as Article 107) may apply in those situations.

Examples of proceedings covered under Article 131:

• Court-martial trials
• Article 32 preliminary hearings
• Deposition testimony
• Sworn statements to investigators
• Boards of Inquiry
• Administrative separation boards
• Military judicial or quasi-judicial hearings

To convict someone of perjury, the government must show far more than a contradiction or mistaken recollection. They must prove intentional deception under oath.

Elements the Government Must Prove Under Article 131

To convict under Article 131, prosecutors must prove:

• The accused took an oath to testify truthfully
• The accused made a statement during the proceeding
• The statement was false
• The accused knew the statement was false at the time
• The statement was material to the proceeding
• The accused intended to mislead, deceive, or obstruct the proceeding

Each element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Most perjury charges fail because prosecutors cannot prove the most important requirements: and materiality.

Maximum Punishments Under Article 131

Article 131 carries harsh penalties because it is considered an attack on the justice system. Maximum punishments include:

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

Even minor inconsistencies in testimony can lead to career-ending consequences if commands abuse Article 131. A perjury accusation alone can trigger:

• Loss of security clearance
• Reassignment or administrative hold
• Separation boards
• Loss of promotion eligibility

Why Article 131 Allegations Are Common in Florida

Florida’s high concentration of investigations, command climate pressure, and alcohol-heavy environments create false or exaggerated perjury accusations.

Florida-specific risk factors:

• Alcohol-influenced memory issues from nightlife in Jacksonville Beach, Pensacola Beach, Ybor City, Miami, and Key West
• High rates of Article 32 hearings and NJP appeals at Navy and Air Force training bases
• Frequent domestic disputes where stories change
• Barracks roommate conflicts creating conflicting testimony
• Inexperienced junior enlisted personnel giving confused or inaccurate statements
• Commands retaliating against service members who contradict official narratives
• Investigators twisting statements into “lies”

Many Article 131 accusations in Florida involve misremembered events, stress under interrogation, or confusion—NOT intentional deception.

Common Real-World Article 131 Scenarios

1. Memory Errors Under Stress

• Service member confused under intense questioning
• Inconsistent recall of timelines or small details
• Changes in memory due to intoxication or trauma

2. Article 32 Testimony Accusations

• Witness contradicts prior statement
• Accuser changes story repeatedly
• Defense witness attacked as “lying” for minor discrepancies

3. Domestic Violence & Relationship Drama

• Partners change stories during emotional fights
• Ex-spouses try to punish through legal accusations

4. Barracks & Roommate Conflicts

• Witnesses giving inconsistent accounts
• Intoxicated statements changed the next day

5. Investigators Misinterpreting Statements

• “He lied” means “he disagreed with our theory”
• No recording of interview
• Inaccurate handwritten notes

6. Errors During Command Investigations

• Service member corrects earlier mistake
• But command treats correction as “proof of lying”

7. Hostile Witness Accusations

• Other service members accuse out of retaliation
• Witnesses attempt to destroy credibility of the accused

How Perjury Investigations Work

Investigations often involve:

• NCIS – Navy/Marine Corps
• OSI – Air Force/Space Force
• CID – Army
• CGIS – Coast Guard
• Command-directed investigations (15-6, BOI, CDI, JAGMAN)

Common investigative flaws:

• No recording of statements
• Handwritten notes with errors
• Failure to document context or tone
• Bias by investigators or chain of command
• Misinterpretation of sarcastic or joking comments
• Accused pressured into answering while stressed or confused

We dismantle perjury cases by attacking each of these vulnerabilities.

How Gonzalez & Waddington Defends Article 131 Cases

Our perjury defense strategy focuses on exposing the weaknesses in the government’s assumptions and proving the accused did NOT intentionally deceive.

1. No Intent to Deceive

• Memory issues
• Stress during questioning
• Confusion due to intoxication
• Contradictions due to unclear questions

2. Statement Was Not Material

If the statement did not affect the outcome, it is NOT perjury.

3. Accused Corrected the Statement Voluntarily

This shows lack of intent.

4. Investigator Misconduct

• No recordings
• Leading questions
• Missing context
• Investigator bias

5. Witness Credibility Attacks

• Jealousy
• Retaliation
• Rumors and gossip
• Command pressure

6. Florida-Specific Strategy

• Alcohol-driven statements
• Beach/nightlife misunderstandings
• Training command interrogation pressure
• Barracks conflict-induced accusations

We win Article 131 cases by proving the government’s theory is speculative, biased, or unsupported by real evidence.

Pro Tips for Anyone Accused of Perjury (Article 131)

• Never talk to investigators without a civilian lawyer.
• Ask for everything in writing.
• Do not rely on memory—write a timeline immediately.
• Preserve recordings, texts, and messages.
• Request legal counsel early.
• Do not argue, guess, or speculate in any interview.
• Stop talking to the chain of command about the case.
• Avoid discussing the case with friends or witnesses.

➤ Get Immediate Article 131 Defense

Article 131 UCMJ – Frequently Asked Questions