Article 131 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes perjury—knowingly giving false testimony under oath. Unlike Article 107 (false official statement), which applies to a wide range of statements, Article 131 applies only to statements made:

• under oath
• during a judicial, administrative, or official military proceeding
• where the accused knew the statement was false
• and intended to mislead or deceive

Perjury is one of the most severe credibility-related offenses in the UCMJ. Commands and prosecutors pursue Article 131 aggressively because they claim it attacks the integrity of the military justice system itself. A perjury conviction can destroy a career, reputation, and credibility forever.

In today’s military, Article 131 charges commonly arise in:

• sexual assault cases where an alleged victim recants or changes testimony
• domestic violence cases with conflicting sworn statements
• administrative hearings (AR 15-6, command inquiries, boards)
• NCIS/CID/OSI/CGIS interviews that were sworn
• nonjudicial punishment hearings where someone testifies under oath
• Article 32 hearings with changing accounts
• military protective order hearings

Commands often misuse Article 131 to punish memory lapses, misunderstandings, or honest corrections. The government frequently claims “perjury” whenever a witness’s story changes—even though inconsistencies are normal, especially under stress.

For service members in Florida, Article 131 allegations frequently arise from:

• contradictions caught on Florida police bodycam
• testimony given during civilian court hearings
• domestic violence injunction proceedings
• sworn Florida police reports inconsistently retold on base
• NCIS or CID interviews that are videotaped and later contradicted

Article 131 – Legal Breakdown

To convict under Article 131, the government must prove:

• The accused took an oath to tell the truth
• The accused then made a false statement
• The accused knew the statement was false
• The statement was material (important to the outcome)
• The accused made the statement with intent to deceive

Key Requirements

Article 131 has three strict requirements the government often fails to prove:

• 1. The statement must be under oath.
  Casual statements, counseling forms, or unsworn investigator interviews do not qualify.
• 2. The statement must be knowingly false.
  Mistakes, confusion, contradictions, or faulty memory are not perjury.
• 3. The statement must be material.
  It must matter—small details do not qualify.

Materiality Requirement

A statement is material if:

• it could influence the outcome of the proceeding
• it touches on an important issue
• it affects credibility, guilt, innocence, or responsibility

Many Article 131 cases involve immaterial contradictions—yet commands still charge them.

Examples of Statements That Are Material

• Changing a key detail about consent in a sexual assault case
• Denying involvement in a physical altercation when video says otherwise
• Swearing you were at location A when GPS shows location B
• Misrepresenting a major financial fact in a fraud investigation

Examples of Statements That Are Not Material

• Forgetting exact times or dates
• Confusing sequence of minor events
• Contradicting earlier statements due to trauma or intoxication
• Misremembering distances, lighting, or directions
• Unimportant inconsistencies irrelevant to the outcome

Maximum Punishments under Article 131

Perjury is treated as a severe felony. Penalties may include:

• Up to 5 years confinement
• Total forfeitures
• Reduction to E-1
• Bad-conduct discharge or dishonorable discharge

Even without court-martial, perjury accusations can fuel:

• administrative separation boards
• GOMORs or letters of reprimand
• loss of security clearance
• career-ending evaluations

What Prosecutors Rely On in Article 131 Cases

• Recorded sworn statements (video or written)
• Article 32 testimony
• cross-examination contradictions
• Florida police statements vs. military statements
• forensic timeline inconsistencies
• emails or digital communications
• “prior inconsistent statements” from any witness

Prosecutors often try to use Article 131 as a pressure tool—to force plea deals or punish someone for recanting, clarifying, or changing their testimony.

Common Offenses and Scenarios Leading to Article 131 Charges

1. Sworn Statements in Sexual Assault Cases

Perjury allegations often target:

• alleged victims who recant
• accused persons who contradict earlier statements
• witnesses whose memories improve or degrade over time

2. Florida Domestic Violence Hearings

Article 131 charges frequently arise after:

• inconsistent sworn testimony in restraining order hearings
• inconsistencies between civilian police reports and NCIS/CID interviews
• statements made during emotional distress

3. Article 32 Testimony

Witnesses testifying under oath at Article 32 preliminary hearings often contradict earlier statements, giving prosecutors an excuse to charge perjury.

4. AR 15-6, Command Inquiries, and Inspector General Investigations

Inconsistencies in these sworn settings frequently result in unlawful or premature perjury accusations.

5. Statements to NCIS / CID / OSI / CGIS

If the interview is sworn, even small inconsistencies may trigger Article 131 charges.

6. Court-Martial Testimony

Perjury charges sometimes arise when:

• the accused testifies in his own defense
• witnesses contradict themselves or others
• a panel or judge finds the accused “not credible”

7. Misinterpretations of Civilian Police Bodycam Footage

Florida police bodycam often captures partial or confusing statements that prosecutors reinterpret as intentional lies.

Real World Article 131 Perjury Scenarios

Article 131 cases almost never involve someone deliberately lying. Instead, they come from confusion, stress, imperfect memory, poorly worded answers, investigator manipulation, or contradictions exposed by video or digital evidence. Below are realistic scenarios seen across military bases, including Florida-specific examples.

• An alleged victim in a sexual assault case gives a sworn NCIS statement months after the event. At trial, her memory is different due to trauma, alcohol, or outside influence. Prosecutors accuse her of perjury.
• A soldier testifies at an Article 32 hearing that he arrived home around midnight. GPS data later shows he arrived at 00:22. CID claims he intentionally lied under oath.
• During a domestic dispute in Florida, a spouse gives sworn testimony in state court. Weeks later, under calmer conditions, they clarify the details. Command claims the testimony was “inconsistent” and pursues Article 131.
• An Air Force member signs a sworn statement drafted by OSI. The agent misquotes several details. Months later, discrepancies are revealed, and the accused is blamed for the agent’s errors.
• In a heated argument, a Marine forgets exact details during sworn testimony. NCIS asserts he lied because bodycam shows a slightly different version of events.
• A witness trying to help a friend unintentionally gives an inaccurate sworn statement about who was present during a bar fight. Prosecutors call the mismatch “perjury,” not human error.
• A service member under PTSD symptoms gives inconsistent responses during a sworn CID interview. OSI/CID treat memory lapses as intentional deception.
• In a BAH fraud case, a soldier under oath states they submitted paperwork on time. DFAS records later show administrative delays. Prosecutors accuse them of lying rather than recognizing clerical failure.
• A sailor testifies that a sexual encounter was entirely consensual. The alleged victim describes it differently. Prosecutors threaten the sailor with perjury if he maintains his testimony.
• A Coast Guardsman provides a sworn statement about equipment usage during a mission. Later, video reveals minor discrepancies. CGIS claims the inaccuracies were deliberate.
• A witness in a fraternization case confuses dates during sworn testimony. The government alleges perjury because the “wrong date” undermines their theory.
• A Marine testifies under oath that he “barely drank” the night of an incident. Toxicology suggests moderate consumption. NCIS calls this perjury, ignoring the natural tendency to minimize drinking.
• An Airman under oath says he “didn’t see” a part of a fight. Later, another witness claims he did. OSI treats this disagreement as proof of lying.
• During a Florida restraining-order hearing, a spouse makes emotional claims inconsistent with later evidence. The command uses Article 131 to punish the spouse for misremembering during a traumatic event.
• A service member recants a statement because new information comes to light. Investigators view recantation as evidence of prior perjury.
• A soldier testifies that he “did not remember” certain details. Later digital logs show actions he forgot. CID accuses him of lying, not simply forgetting.
• An intoxicated service member on bodycam says one thing, then gives a different sworn version later when sober. Command leaps to perjury rather than acknowledging alcohol-induced confusion.
• A victim advocate influences an alleged victim’s memory before they provide sworn testimony. Later inconsistencies are treated as perjury by the accused or the alleged victim.
• A Marine gives a sworn statement to NCIS saying he left a Florida club at 1 a.m. Uber data shows 1:17. NCIS calls this “knowingly false.”
• A witness in a financial fraud investigation misunderstands how DTS works and testifies inaccurately. The government treats this as deception rather than ignorance.

Article 131 cases rarely involve clear-cut lies. Most come from normal human memory issues, officer pressure, investigator coercion, trauma, alcohol, or misunderstanding.

How Article 131 Investigations Are Built

Perjury investigations rely heavily on comparison—contrasting one statement with another, or comparing a statement to physical or digital evidence. The government then calls inconsistencies “intentional lies,” even when they are anything but. Understanding these patterns allows the defense to dismantle the accusation from the ground up.

The Government’s Core Strategy: Contradiction → Intent

Investigators follow a predictable formula:

1. Find a contradiction
2. Assume the contradiction was intentional
3. Ignore context, emotion, trauma, or stress
4. Claim the accused “lied” under oath

The defense must force the government to prove intent—not merely inconsistency.

Weaponizing Memory Gaps

Investigators rarely understand:

• trauma-induced memory distortion
• alcohol-induced blackouts
• fragmented recall during stress
• time compression effects
• fight-or-flight memory interference

These very normal cognitive processes are often misrepresented as deliberate deception.

Manipulation of Sworn Statements

Investigators often:

• draft sworn statements themselves
• paraphrase inaccurately
• rush the accused through reading
• omit mitigating information
• present leading questions

Later, when discrepancies emerge, the accused is blamed—even though investigators crafted the wording.

The “Materiality Trap”

The government often claims:

• any inconsistency is material
• any difference in times or dates is material
• any correction equals lying

The defense must force prosecutors to show that the alleged falsehood actually mattered to the case.

Florida Bodycam and Civilian Statements

Florida’s extensive use of:

• body-worn cameras
• civilian police interviews
• emergency call recordings

provides investigators with multiple recordings of the same person—often while intoxicated, stressed, or emotional. Contradictions are inevitable and not evidence of perjury.

CID / NCIS / OSI / CGIS Misinterpretation Patterns

• CID: treats memory failure as intentional lying.
• NCIS: aggressively uses perjury threats to pressure suspects or witnesses.
• OSI: focuses on digital contradictions and timeline discrepancies.
• CGIS: increasingly charges perjury based on inconsistencies with bodycam footage.

Digital Evidence Misuse

Perjury investigations often rely on:

• metadata (often misunderstood)
• GPS logs
• search history
• texts and social media posts

But digital evidence often:

• contradicts itself
• changes with phone updates
• shows approximate—not exact—data
• reflects automatic device activity

These pitfalls make digital contradictions unreliable proof of intentional lies.

The Role of Recantation

In many cases:

• alleged victims recant
• witnesses change their account
• accused persons correct earlier mistakes

Prosecutors sometimes treat recantation as perjury. The defense must show recantation is normal, especially when initial statements were made under pressure or misunderstanding.

Florida-Specific Perjury Pitfalls

Florida creates unique risks because:

• state court testimony may differ from military testimony
• bodycam captures imperfect, emotional statements
• police often paraphrase incorrectly
• witnesses are often intoxicated during initial statements
• civilian prosecutors frequently decline charges, but commands continue

These inconsistencies fuel weak Article 131 accusations.

How Gonzalez & Waddington Defend Article 131 Perjury Cases

Perjury is one of the government’s favorite “add-on” charges when they believe a witness or accused person contradicted a previous statement. But Article 131 requires far more than inconsistency. The defense must dismantle the government’s assumptions about intent, memory, context, and materiality. Gonzalez & Waddington approach perjury cases with a detailed strategy focused on psychology, investigative failures, and the realities of human memory.

Step 1 – Destroy the Government’s “Intent to Deceive” Theory

Article 131 requires proof that the accused intended to deceive. The defense focuses on:

• stress, fear, intoxication, or trauma affecting memory
• the accused being confused or overwhelmed
• ambiguous questions asked by investigators
• misunderstandings due to noise, chaos, or rapid questioning
• lack of motive to deceive
• prior honesty and cooperation

If intent cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, Article 131 fails completely.

Step 2 – Demonstrate Normal Human Memory Variability

Memory science is a powerful defense tool. The defense shows:

• memories change over time
• trauma distorts recollection
• alcohol impairs memory formation
• stress and adrenaline compress or extend time perception
• witnesses recall details inconsistently even minutes apart

These factors undermine any claim that inconsistencies are deliberate lies.

Step 3 – Expose Investigator Manipulation of Sworn Statements

Investigators frequently draft sworn statements themselves, leading to:

• incorrect paraphrasing
• omitted context
• leading or suggestive questions
• overly broad summaries
• misquotations or errors

When discrepancies emerge, the defense shows that the investigator caused them—not the accused.

Step 4 – Prove the Statement Was Not “Material”

A statement is only perjury if it was material. The defense demonstrates:

• the inconsistency had no impact on the case
• the detail was irrelevant to guilt or innocence
• the contradiction involved minor or unimportant details
• the proceeding did not rely on the statement

Without materiality, Article 131 collapses.

Step 5 – Use Video Evidence to Show Honest Confusion

Bodycam, interview room videos, and recorded testimony often show:

• the accused confused or emotional, not deceptive
• investigators pushing answers or interrupting
• statements taken mid-chaos
• language barriers or communication issues
• the accused clarifying details, not concealing them

Step 6 – Attack Conflicting Witness Testimony

Prosecutors often build perjury cases by comparing one witness’s memory with another’s. The defense highlights:

• inconsistent witness statements
• contradictions within the government’s own evidence
• witness bias, motive to lie, or misunderstanding
• drunken or traumatized witnesses whose memories are equally flawed

Step 7 – Present Innocent Explanations for Inconsistencies

The defense must offer non-criminal explanations such as:

• forgetting due to stress or alcohol
• misremembering details
• getting dates or times wrong
• speaking imprecisely
• correcting earlier misunderstandings

Perjury requires knowing falsity—not human imperfection.

Step 8 – Use Experts When Needed

Experts can testify about:

• memory science
• trauma and recall
• interrogation psychology
• linguistic misunderstandings
• alcohol impairment

Step 9 – Fight Administrative Perjury Cases with Full Force

Even when Article 131 does not go to court-martial, commands use alleged “lying under oath” to justify:

• separation boards
• boards of inquiry
• removal from sensitive billets
• GOMORs / letters of reprimand
• clearance revocations

Gonzalez & Waddington defend these as aggressively as criminal cases because the reputational harm is enormous.

Pro Tips for Service Members Facing Article 131 Perjury Allegations

These practical steps help protect your rights and your credibility from the moment a perjury investigation begins.

• Do not speak to investigators without a lawyer—your own words are the evidence in these cases.
• Never sign a sworn statement you did not personally write or review carefully.
• If pressured to “fix” inconsistencies, decline until you speak with counsel.
• Preserve all recordings, texts, emails, and digital evidence showing your state of mind.
• Document stress, trauma, illness, or intoxication at the time of the statement.
• Never try to explain contradictions yourself—it almost always makes things worse.
• Ask for audio or video recording of interviews to prevent misquoting.
• Do not delete messages or notes; deletions fuel obstruction allegations.
• Do not argue with accusers or investigators; contradictions will be used against you.
• Take detailed notes with your lawyer about what you remember and don’t remember.
• Understand that forgetting is not lying—document memory gaps early.
• Tell your attorney if English is not your first language; misunderstandings matter.
• Save evidence showing you had no motive to deceive.
• Identify witnesses who can confirm your confusion or emotional state.
• Do not rely on barracks lawyers—perjury law is highly specialized.
• Prepare for investigators to twist your statements; avoid casual conversation.
• If bodycam was involved, request it immediately—context saves cases.
• Practice consistent wording with your lawyer before speaking to command.
• Be proactive; perjury allegations escalate quickly and unpredictably.
• Stay calm—anger or defensiveness looks like guilt to inexperienced investigators.

Call to Action for Article 131 Perjury Allegations

Article 131 perjury allegations can destroy a career, reputation, and future even when they arise from simple, honest mistakes. Commands often misuse Article 131 to punish contradictions, emotional statements, or misunderstandings. You need experienced trial lawyers who understand memory science, interrogation psychology, sworn statement procedures, and the exact legal requirements of perjury.

Gonzalez & Waddington defend service members worldwide against perjury allegations. Whether your case involves conflicting testimony in a sexual assault investigation, contradictions caught on Florida police bodycam, a recanted statement, or inconsistencies in an AR 15-6 or Article 32 hearing, we know how to dismantle these cases from the ground up.

For immediate help, visit our Florida military defense hub at
https://ucmjdefense.com/florida-military-defense-lawyers/.

For more articles covering the entire UCMJ, return to
UCMJ Articles 77–134 Guide.