Article 84 UCMJ – Unlawful Enlistment, Appointment, or Separation – Military Defense Lawyers

UCMJ Military Defense Guide by Gonzalez & Waddington

Article 84 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes unlawful enlistment, appointment, or separation. Unlike Article 83—which punishes the service member for fraud—Article 84 targets the person who knowingly helps another individual enter military service or receive an appointment or separation unlawfully. This offense is essentially about aiding another person in circumventing rules governing enlistment, commission, or discharge.

These cases often involve recruiters, clerks, administrators, sponsors, friends, supervisors, or anyone who assists another person in lying, concealing information, falsifying forms, altering paperwork, or bypassing required qualifications. However, most Article 84 cases arise from misunderstandings, pressure, confusion, or minor administrative errors rather than deliberate wrongdoing.

Florida sees above-average numbers of Article 84 allegations due to its large recruiting population (Miami, Tampa, Jacksonville, Orlando, Pensacola), diverse immigrant communities, medical licensing complexities, and heavy operational tempo across Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Army, and Coast Guard installations.

Gonzalez & Waddington is internationally recognized for defending UCMJ cases involving administrative irregularities, alleged recruiting misconduct, and complex paperwork or qualification disputes. We expose mistakes, miscommunication, and government overreach that frequently result in wrongful Article 84 charges.

➤ Speak With a Defense Lawyer for Article 84 UCMJ Allegations

What Article 84 Criminalizes

A service member violates Article 84 when they knowingly assist someone in unlawfully entering the military, unlawfully receiving an appointment, or unlawfully obtaining a separation or discharge.

This includes:

• Helping someone hide medical conditions
• Assisting with falsifying identity or paperwork
• Helping someone conceal criminal convictions
• Improperly processing a separation packet
• Allowing someone not meeting requirements to enlist or receive orders
• Being part of an unauthorized separation scheme
• Bypassing required waivers
• Improperly administering recruit screening

The key element is that the accused must have knowingly helped make the enlistment, appointment, or separation unlawful.

Article 84 vs. Article 83 – What’s the Difference?

Article 83 punishes the person enlisting or separating when they lie or conceal information.

Article 84 punishes the person helping them do it.

Common defendants include:

• Recruiters
• MEPS staff
• Clerks processing paperwork
• Supervisors assisting with bypassing rules
• Other service members helping applicants

The accused does not have to benefit financially — simply helping is enough.

Examples of Unlawful Enlistment or Appointment

• A recruiter tells an applicant to hide past drug use
• An NCO helps someone falsify medical documents
• Clerks pushing paperwork through despite disqualifying conditions
• An officer ignoring missing eligibility requirements
• Helping a friend with fraudulent identity papers
• Intentionally skipping background checks
• Enabling a foreign national to join without proper vetting

Examples of Unlawful Separation

• Helping a service member obtain a hardship discharge fraudulently
• Approving separation without required signatures
• Ignoring legal or medical prerequisites for release
• Submitting falsified documents to secure someone’s discharge

But many cases stem from errors—not fraud.

Elements the Government Must Prove

To convict under Article 84, prosecutors must prove:

1. The Accused Helped Another Person Enlist, Be Appointed, or Separated

The assistance may be direct or indirect.

2. The Enlistment/Appointment/Separation Was Unlawful

Administrative or procedural violations must be substantial.

3. The Accused Knew the Action Was Unlawful

Honest mistakes or misunderstanding regulations are not enough.

4. The Accused Intended to Help the Person Achieve the Unlawful Result

This is often the weakest element in Article 84 prosecutions.

Why Article 84 Cases Are Often Weak

• Most military admin systems are complex and confusing
• Mistakes are common and not criminal
• Accused often relied on MEPS or command guidance
• Recruiters are pressured to meet quotas, leading to misunderstandings—not fraud
• No evidence the accused knew the rules were being broken
• Accused’s role was clerical—not intentional misconduct
• Documents may have been altered downstream, not by the accused
• Waivers would have been approved anyway

Most Article 84 cases involve confusion, bad assumptions, or miscommunication—not criminal intent.

Why Article 84 Allegations Are Common in Florida

Florida’s recruitment and separation environment presents unique risks:

• High-volume recruiting districts with inexperienced staff
• Diverse applicants with complex medical/legal histories
• Heavy recruiter pressure to meet monthly quotas
• Frequent MEPS administrative bottlenecks
• Language and translation challenges in South Florida
• Immigration and documentation complexity
• PCS turnover among staff, causing inconsistent guidance

Most Florida cases involve procedural mistakes—not deliberate fraud.

Florida-Specific Real-World Scenarios

• A Tampa recruiter under pressure overlooks missing medical forms.
• A Jacksonville clerk processes a separation packet without proper dependency verification.
• MEPS staff in Orlando misinterpret an applicant’s foreign medical records.
• A Miami recruiter helps an immigrant applicant fill out paperwork incorrectly due to language issues.
• Pensacola staff sign off on a separation packet that lacked a required endorsement.
• A Coast Guard NCO fails to catch an outdated physical exam required for appointment.

None of these justify criminal punishment under Article 84.

How Article 84 Investigations Work

Investigations may include:

• Review of enlistment or separation packets
• Interviews with MEPS staff and recruiters
• Interviews with the applicant or separated member
• Review of regulations governing eligibility
• Digital forensic review of emails, texts, and messages
• Statements from supervisors
• Command climate reports

Common Investigation Errors We Expose

• No proof the accused understood the regulation
• Assumption that errors = fraud
• Conflicting guidance from MEPS or chain of command
• Overreliance on hearsay from disgruntled recruits
• No evidence of personal benefit to the accused
• Failure to consider waiver availability
• Misidentification of who actually submitted incorrect documents

Defense Strategies for Article 84 Cases

1. No Knowledge of Wrongdoing

Most Article 84 cases fail because the accused had no idea a violation occurred.

2. Recruiter or Administrative Error

Paperwork confusion is common in Florida’s high-volume recruiting centers.

3. No Intent to Assist Fraud

Intent—not negligence—is required for conviction.

4. Waiver or Eligibility Defense

If the applicant would have qualified anyway, the omission is not “material.”

5. Florida-Specific Defense Factors

• Language confusion in South Florida
• Civilian MEPS errors
• High turnover among recruiting staff

6. Misidentification of the Responsible Person

Often someone else processed or altered the paperwork.

7. No Prejudice to Good Order or Discipline

Minor paperwork issues rarely harm the service.

Pro Tips for Anyone Facing Article 84 Allegations

• Do NOT speak to investigators without counsel.
• Preserve all messages and documents relating to the enlistment or separation.
• Do not attempt to “fix” paperwork retroactively.
• Document your version of events privately.
• Identify witnesses who observed the process.
• Avoid discussing the case with peers or supervisors.
• Hire an experienced UCMJ defense lawyer immediately.

➤ Protect Your Career – Get Article 84 Defense Now

Article 84 – Frequently Asked Questions