Article 131b UCMJ – Obstruction of Justice – Military Defense Lawyers
UCMJ Military Defense Guide by Gonzalez & Waddington
Article 131b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes obstruction of justice—any act intended to impede, interfere with, or influence an investigation, disciplinary proceeding, criminal process, or administrative action. It is one of the most dangerous “add-on” charges in the UCMJ because it is frequently overused by commands to punish normal communication, emotional reactions, confusion about orders, or misunderstandings about one’s rights.
Obstruction of justice is often charged when service members attempt to reconcile with an accuser, explain themselves, calm a dispute, seek clarity, delete personal messages for privacy, distance themselves from a problem, or simply panic during an investigation. In many cases, these actions are not criminal, yet commands assume malicious intent.
Florida military bases—including NAS Jacksonville, Mayport, Pensacola, Whiting Field, Eglin, Hurlburt Field, Tyndall, Patrick SFB, MacDill, NSA Panama City, NAS Key West, and Coast Guard Sectors—see a high number of Article 131b charges. These usually stem from domestic disputes, sexual assault allegations, command investigations, barracks incidents, DUI inquiries, or situations where service members or civilians misinterpret normal communication as “influencing the investigation.”
Gonzalez & Waddington is internationally recognized for defending military clients in high-stakes cases involving obstruction, false statements, sexual assault allegations, domestic violence, and command investigations. We dismantle weak claims, expose misinterpretations, and prove when the accused had no intent to obstruct anything.
What Article 131b Criminalizes
A service member may be guilty of obstruction if they intentionally:
- Influence or attempt to influence a witness
- Prevent communication with law enforcement or command
- Alter, destroy, or conceal evidence
- Interfere with a criminal investigation
- Intimidate, threaten, or persuade someone not to report wrongdoing
- Encourage someone to lie or avoid investigators
- Mislead investigators intentionally
- Engage in deceptive conduct affecting the legal process
However, Article 131b is often misapplied to situations involving:
- Apologies
- Emotional discussions
- Attempts to reconcile with a spouse/partner
- Clarifying events with witnesses
- Deleting private messages for personal reasons
- Fear-based reactions
- Miscommunication during stress
These actions are NOT obstruction unless prosecutors can prove wrongful intent.
Elements of Article 131b
The government must prove all of the following:
1. The Accused Wrongfully Did an Act
This can be communication, deletion, movement, or action that impacts an investigation.
2. The Act Was Designed to Influence, Impede, or Obstruct an Investigation
Intent is the most important element. If intent is not clearly established, there is no crime.
3. The Accused’s Conduct Actually Had the Potential to Affect the Investigation
The act does not need to succeed—only to have the potential.
4. The Investigation Was Pending or Reasonably Foreseeable
You cannot obstruct something you didn’t know was starting or likely to happen.
Categories of Obstruction Under Article 131b
1. Interference With Witnesses
- Telling someone not to talk to investigators
- Persuading a partner or roommate not to report something
- Asking a witness to “help me out” or “not mention X”
2. Destruction or Alteration of Evidence
- Deleting messages because they are embarrassing (not always obstruction!)
- Throwing away clothing or items
- Resetting a phone
3. Misleading Investigators
False statements may also fall under Article 107.
4. Avoiding or Attempting to Avoid Investigation
Hiding, fleeing, or lying about whereabouts.
Maximum Punishments Under Article 131b
Obstruction of justice is treated very seriously under the UCMJ, especially in sexual assault and major misconduct cases.
- Dishonorable discharge
- Confinement up to 5 years
- Total forfeitures
- Reduction to E-1
When paired with Article 120, 128, or 134 charges, sentencing exposure can be significantly higher.
Why Article 131b Allegations Are Common in Florida
Florida sees a high rate of obstruction charges due to:
- Drunken misunderstandings after nightlife events
- Emotional relationship disputes
- Attempted reconciliations interpreted as “witness tampering”
- Civilian police misinterpreting service member statements
- Roommate drama in barracks
- Deleting texts or photos for privacy rather than obstruction
- Training environment stress leading to panic responses
- Coast Guard/DHS investigations involving civilian jurisdictions
Most Florida Article 131b cases involve panic, confusion, or emotion rather than true intent to obstruct justice.
Common Real-World Article 131b Scenarios
1. Telling a Partner “Don’t Tell Anyone” During an Argument
Commands often view this as witness tampering—even when the partner later retracts or clarifies.
2. Apologizing After an Incident
Prosecutors sometimes treat an apology as “trying to influence testimony.”
3. Deleting Messages Out of Embarrassment
Many service members delete private conversations—NOT to obstruct.
4. Trying to Clarify Events With a Witness
Even asking “What did you say?” may be misinterpreted.
5. Roommate Drama Leading to Exaggerated Claims
“He told me not to call command” is a common accusation.
6. Domestic Conflicts
Partners often weaponize obstruction allegations during emotional disputes.
7. Posting or Removing Content on Social Media
Deleting posts for privacy is not obstruction—unless prosecutors misunderstand intent.
8. Avoiding Investigators Out of Fear
Panic-driven avoidance is often mischaracterized as obstruction.
9. Incorrectly Assuming You “Can’t Talk About It”
Service members sometimes act out of confusion, not malice.
10. Command Overreach
Leadership may stretch normal interpersonal communication into a felony-level offense.
How Article 131b Investigations Work
Agencies involved often include:
- NCIS
- OSI
- CID
- CGIS
- Civilian police
- Prosecutors’ offices
- Command legal officers
Common Investigative Errors We Expose
- Assuming intent without proof
- Misinterpreting emotional communication
- Failing to consider the accused’s mental state
- Taking accuser statements at face value
- Overreliance on text messages without context
- Ignoring contradictions in witness stories
- No evidence anything was actually obstructed
- Command pressure creating exaggerated narratives
Most 131b cases collapse when intent is properly analyzed.
Defense Strategies for Article 131b Cases
1. Attack the Intent Element
We prove the accused had no wrongful intent—only fear, confusion, or emotional distress.
2. Show Innocent Purpose Behind Communication
Reconciliation, clarification, or apology are not crimes.
3. Demonstrate Lack of Harm or Effect
The alleged act did not actually obstruct anything.
4. Prove the Investigation Was Not Foreseeable
If the accused did not know an investigation would begin, there is no crime.
5. Florida-Specific Defense Tactics
- Drunken misunderstandings
- Tourist or civilian witnesses exaggerating
- Civilian police misinterpreting military conduct
- Partners weaponizing accusations during domestic conflicts
6. Use Digital Forensics
We reconstruct timelines, retrieve deleted data, and show context for all messages.
7. Attack Credibility of Key Witnesses
False accusers often collapse under cross-examination.
Pro Tips for Service Members Accused Under Article 131b
- Do NOT speak to investigators—ever.
- Do not delete any messages from this point forward.
- Do not contact the alleged victim or witness.
- Save all texts, screenshots, call logs, and social media.
- Document your mental and emotional state.
- Identify witnesses who saw the conversation or behavior.
- Avoid discussing the case with coworkers.
- Hire a civilian defense lawyer immediately.
Related UCMJ Articles
- UCMJ Article Hub
- Article 131 – Perjury
- Article 131a – Subornation of Perjury
- Article 131d – Retaliation
- Article 107 – False Official Statement
Article 131b UCMJ – Frequently Asked Questions
Can apologizing be considered obstruction?
Commands often misinterpret apologies as attempts to influence testimony. But apology alone is NOT obstruction unless prosecutors can prove a specific intent to interfere with an investigation.
Can deleting text messages be obstruction?
Not automatically. Many people delete messages for privacy or habit. To convict, prosecutors must prove you deleted messages knowing an investigation was pending and intending to interfere with it.
What if I told someone “don’t talk to anyone” during a fight?
Context matters. Emotional, panicked, or protective statements are not obstruction if they were not intended to influence an official investigation.
Can I be charged if the investigation wasn’t active yet?
No. The investigation must be pending or reasonably foreseeable. If you didn’t know or anticipate an investigation, Article 131b does not apply.
Why hire Gonzalez & Waddington?
We are world-class military defense lawyers with decades of success defeating obstruction charges. We expose flawed investigations, misinterpretations, emotional overreactions, and command exaggeration that commonly drive Article 131b cases.
Final Takeaways
Article 131b obstruction of justice is one of the UCMJ’s most dangerous and frequently abused charges. Many allegations arise from normal human behavior—panic, embarrassment, confusion, love, fear, misunderstanding, or emotional reaction—not criminal intent. When defended correctly, obstruction cases can often be dismissed or reduced dramatically.
Your silence protects you.
Your lawyer shields you.
Your strategy determines your future.