Article 131a UCMJ – Subornation of Perjury – Military Defense Lawyers

UCMJ Military Defense Guide by Gonzalez & Waddington

Article 131a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes subornation of perjury—that is, causing, persuading, pressuring, encouraging, or inducing another person to lie under oath. This is a serious felony under the UCMJ and is closely related to perjury (Article 131), obstruction of justice (Article 131b), and witness tampering (Article 134-type offenses).

Because subornation of perjury is often emotionally charged and highly subjective, many service members are wrongfully accused after heated disputes, breakups, command investigations, or criminal cases where witnesses change their stories or misunderstand legal instructions. Commands frequently assume “pressure” or “coaching” whenever a witness revises testimony, speaks with the accused, or expresses doubt about their original statement.

Florida’s military installations—including NAS Jacksonville, Mayport, Pensacola, Whiting Field, Eglin, Hurlburt Field, Tyndall, Patrick SFB, MacDill AFB, NSA Panama City, NAS Key West, and Coast Guard units—see elevated 131a allegations due to domestic disputes, command climate issues, alcohol-related cases, and volatile relationship dynamics where witnesses frequently change stories or feel intimidated by investigators—not the accused.

Gonzalez & Waddington defends service members accused of witness tampering, subornation, perjury, and obstruction. We expose investigator intimidation, command pressure, unreliable witnesses, missing context, and allegations driven by emotion rather than fact.

➤ Request a Strategy Session for Article 131a Defense

What Article 131a Criminalizes

A service member commits subornation of perjury if they:

• Cause another person to lie under oath
• Persuade or pressure them to lie
• Influence them to lie, conceal, or falsify facts
• Encourage them to commit perjury
• Knowingly assist or support a false sworn statement

This includes attempts to influence testimony during:

• Court-martial
• Article 32 preliminary hearing
• CID/NCIS/OSI/CGIS interviews
• Command investigations (AR 15-6, CDI, JAGMAN)
• Sworn statements, affidavits, or declarations
• Administrative hearings (NJP, BOI, separation boards)

In many cases, the allegation arises from a misunderstanding of what the accused said—not intentional wrongdoing.

Examples of Alleged Article 131a Violations

• Telling a witness “don’t tell them everything”
• Suggesting a spouse “just say nothing happened”
• Texting a witness about their upcoming statement
• Asking someone to “help me out” with testimony
• Encouraging a roommate not to mention certain details
• Command misinterpreting advice as “coaching”
• Emotional conversations during a breakup
• A witness changing their story after talking with the accused
• Innocent discussions spun as “pressure” or “influence”

Often, the accused had no intent to cause perjury and the claim is based on vague or exaggerated interpretations.

Elements the Government Must Prove

The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. A Person Committed Perjury

The witness must have actually lied under oath. If there was no perjury, 131a usually fails.

2. The Accused Caused the Perjury

There must be clear evidence the accused persuaded or pressured the witness.

3. The Accused Acted Knowingly and Wrongfully

Misunderstandings, miscommunication, or emotional outbursts are not enough.

4. The Accused Intended to Influence Testimony

This is the most difficult element for the government to prove.

What Article 131a Is NOT

The following do NOT automatically constitute subornation of perjury:

• Talking to a witness or partner about the case
• Attempting to clear up misunderstandings
• Suggesting a witness “be honest”
• A witness changing their story independently
• Encouraging a witness to get a lawyer
• Telling someone you believe they are innocent
• Emotional conversations in private relationships
• Asking a spouse not to involve command in personal matters
• Reasonable discussions about consequences

Article 131a requires intentional wrongdoing—not accidental influence or emotional conversations.

Why Article 131a Cases Are Often Weak

• Witnesses exaggerate or reinterpret ordinary conversations
• Investigators pressure witnesses to reinterpret statements
• No objective evidence of influence
• Case hinges solely on “he said, she said”
• Witness had independent reasons for changing their testimony
• Command climate pushes charges despite weak facts
• Messages taken out of context
• Body language or emotion misread as coercion
• Investigators overstep and cause witness confusion

Cross-examination frequently destroys the government’s story.

Why Article 131a Allegations Are Common in Florida

Article 131a incidents often arise from Florida-specific conditions:

• Domestic disputes near bases
• Alcohol-fueled arguments in nightlife zones (Jacksonville Beach, Tampa, Orlando, Pensacola)
• High-conflict breakups and relationship drama
• Witnesses who change their stories out of regret or fear
• Investigators misunderstanding multicultural communication in diverse Florida communities
• Command pressure to “crack down” on witness interference

These dynamics often lead to exaggerated or false 131a accusations.

Real-World Florida Article 131a Scenarios

1. Partner Recants Domestic Violence Allegation

Investigators automatically blame the accused—even when recantation is voluntary.

2. Witness Declines to Cooperate in Pensacola or Jacksonville

CID/NCIS assumes “pressure” without evidence.

3. Emotional Texts During Breakups

Statements like “don’t tell them everything” misinterpreted as subornation.

4. Mutual Threats in Toxic Relationships

Accuser weaponizes Article 131a to avoid their own misconduct exposure.

5. Witness Misunderstands Advice

“Get a lawyer” or “be careful what you say” twisted into coercion allegations.

6. Command-Driven Investigations

Leadership pressures investigators to escalate minor conversations into criminal allegations.

How Article 131a Investigations Work

Expect involvement from:

• CID / NCIS / OSI / CGIS
• Command-directed inquiries (CDI, AR 15-6, JAGMAN)
• Recorded interviews & sworn statements
• Text messages and call logs
• Social media and digital forensics
• Witness timelines and credibility assessments

Common Failures Investigators Make

• Pressuring witnesses to reinterpret conversations
• Asking leading or manipulative questions
• Failing to record full conversations
• Ignoring witness motives to lie or change stories
• Assuming guilt without follow-up investigation
• Ignoring or hiding exculpatory evidence

Defense Strategies for Article 131a Cases

1. Attack the “Intent” Element

Many accused individuals were emotional—not attempting to influence testimony.

2. Expose Investigator Misconduct

We show when CID/NCIS coerced or confused the witness—not the accused.

3. Use Full-Context Digital Forensics

Full message threads often prove the accused said nothing improper.

4. Florida-Specific Defenses

• Alcohol-related misunderstandings
• Cultural or linguistic misinterpretations
• Nightlife-driven conflict situations

5. Attack Witness Credibility

Accusers often exaggerate to avoid responsibility or to gain advantage.

6. Prove Independent Recantation

We show that the witness changed their story by choice—not coercion.

Potential Punishments for Article 131a

• Confinement (years)
• Dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge
• Reduction to E-1
• Total forfeitures
• Permanent career damage
• Loss of clearance

Even administrative findings of witness tampering can end a career when not properly defended.

Pro Tips for Anyone Accused Under Article 131a

• Do NOT contact the witness.
• Do NOT discuss testimony with anyone.
• Do NOT answer investigator questions without counsel.
• Preserve all digital communication.
• Make a private, privileged timeline for your attorney.
• Avoid social media commentary.
• Hire an experienced UCMJ defense lawyer immediately.

➤ Protect Your Freedom, Rank & Future – Contact Gonzalez & Waddington

Article 131a – Frequently Asked Questions