Article 107 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes making a false official statement—either spoken or written—with the intent to deceive. It is one of the most powerful tools prosecutors use to transform mistakes, misunderstandings, memory gaps, or poor wording into felony-level charges.

Article 107 charges often arise not from an intent to lie, but from an accused’s attempt to explain themselves, correct information, or calm a tense situation. Investigators are trained to scrutinize every word a service member says or writes during interviews, counseling sessions, sworn statements, and official documents. A small inconsistency can be exaggerated into an “intent to deceive.”

For service members stationed in or tied to Florida, Article 107 allegations frequently arise from interactions with civilian police, bodycam-recorded statements, NCIS/CID/OSI interviews, and command-directed investigations. Florida’s heavy law enforcement presence means more recorded encounters—and more opportunities for statements to be misinterpreted or taken out of context.

Article 107 is often paired with other charges like Article 120 (sexual assault), Article 128 (assault), Article 92 (orders violations), Article 112a (drug offenses), Article 121 (fraud), and Article 134 (obstruction or “catch-all” crimes). Prosecutors frequently use Article 107 to paper over weaknesses in their primary case.

This guide breaks down the elements of Article 107, the prosecution’s typical strategies, how investigators manipulate statements, Florida-specific issues, and the defense strategies used by Gonzalez & Waddington. For the full system overview, return to UCMJ Articles 77–134 Guide.

Article 107 – Full Legal Breakdown

Article 107 criminalizes knowingly and intentionally falsifying or making an official statement with the purpose of deceiving. The elements of Article 107 include:

• The accused made a certain official statement (oral or written)
• The statement was false
• The accused knew it was false at the time
• The accused intended to deceive
• The statement was official (i.e., connected to military duties or investigations)

What Counts as an “Official” Statement?

A statement is official if it is made:

• to a military investigator (CID, NCIS, OSI, CGIS)
• to a commander or senior NCO
• in a sworn statement (DA Form 2823, NCIS 5580/2, etc.)
• in a counseling form or performance evaluation
• in a police interview or bodycam-recorded conversation
• on a military form or document (BAH cert, travel voucher, duty logs)
• in written email correspondence with command or admin

Nearly anything said to someone performing an official duty can be treated as an “official statement.”

What Does Not Count as an “Official Statement”?

• Casual conversations among peers
• Private texts between service members not acting in official capacity
• Informal statements with no connection to military duties
• Rumors or third-party retellings

However, prosecutors often try to stretch the definition to include statements that are not truly official.

The Intent to Deceive

Intent is the cornerstone of Article 107. A statement is only punishable if the accused intended to mislead, deceive, or misdirect. Honest mistakes, imperfect memory, and misunderstandings are not criminal. The government must prove:

• The accused knew the statement was false
• The accused made the statement for the purpose of influencing or obstructing an official action

Proving intent is where most Article 107 cases fall apart.

Types of Article 107 Violations

Article 107 covers a wide range of conduct, including:

• False sworn statements
• False statements during interrogations
• False statements to Florida police or sheriff deputies
• False entries or omissions on official forms
• False reports of crimes (fabricated assault, theft, etc.)
• False statements during command-directed investigations
• False statements during AR 15-6 investigations
• False statements in counseling or written statements

Maximum Punishments under Article 107

Maximum punishments vary but can include:

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

Even without a court-martial, Article 107 accusations often lead to:

• Separation boards
• Loss of career progression
• Security clearance revocation
• Flagging or removal from sensitive positions

How Prosecutors Try to Prove Article 107 Cases

Government attorneys and investigators rely heavily on:

• Recorded statements (bodycam, interview room videos)
• Sworn written statements prepared by investigators
• Contemporaneous emails and text messages
• Documentation contradicting the accused’s story
• Prior inconsistent statements
• Timeline inconsistencies
• Witness testimony claiming the accused “changed the story”

Their strategy is simple: turn inconsistencies into lies and normal human memory gaps into intentional deception.

Common Misunderstandings in Article 107 Cases

• Inconsistency is not deception. Memory changes naturally over time.
• Not recalling something is not lying.
• Being confused during a stressful event is normal.
• Investigators often paraphrase or misquote statements.
• False statements written by investigators are frequently inaccurate.
• “Intent to deceive” must be proven, not assumed.

Branch Differences in Article 107 Enforcement

• Army: often charges Article 107 when soldiers recant or clarify statements in AR 15-6 investigations.
• Marine Corps: uses Article 107 aggressively to enforce strict discipline in training commands.
• Navy: NCIS often uses Article 107 to pressure suspects in sexual assault or drug cases.
• Air Force/Space Force: relies heavily on emails, digital logs, and forms as the basis for 107 allegations.
• Coast Guard: tends to pair 107 with obstruction or federal false statement cases.

Florida-Specific Article 107 Patterns

In Florida, Article 107 cases often involve:

• Statements made to sheriff deputies, state troopers, or city police (all considered “official”)
• Recorded bodycam and dashcam footage that captures real-time inconsistencies
• Misinterpretations of statements made during loud or chaotic nightlife incidents
• Confusion during domestic disputes leading to conflicting accounts
• Statements made during DUI stops or traffic accidents

Florida’s heavy use of bodycams means investigators often splice statements out of context to allege intentional deceit.

Real World Article 107 Military Scenarios

Article 107 charges rarely arise from traditional “lying.” They almost always come from confusion, fear, rushed interviews, investigator manipulation, coercive questioning, or an accused trying to explain something under pressure. These scenarios illustrate how quickly a normal interaction becomes a felony-level false statement accusation.

• A soldier gives a statement during an AR 15-6 investigation about a barracks fight. Later, after reviewing surveillance video, he clarifies a detail. CID charges him with making a false official statement.
• A Marine involved in a domestic argument tells police, “Nothing happened. We just argued.” Bodycam shows the spouse crying. NCIS claims the Marine lied because he minimized the situation.
• An Air Force member says he “got home at midnight,” but phone records show he returned at 00:18. OSI alleges intentional deception.
• A sailor in Jacksonville forgets to mention one drink he had earlier in the night during a police interview. Investigators treat the omission as a deliberate lie.
• A service member signs a written statement drafted by an NCIS agent, trusting that it accurately reflects what they said. Later, discrepancies are found. NCIS charges Article 107.
• An Army NCO reports that he counseled a soldier on a certain date. The counseling form was prepared late due to admin delays. Prosecutors call this a false official statement.
• During a sexual assault investigation, an accused sailor tries to give his perspective to NCIS. His timeline is inconsistent with the alleged victim’s. NCIS argues he intentionally provided a false story.
• A Marine tells a platoon sergeant he “didn’t hear” an order during a chaotic training event. Witnesses say he did hear it. Prosecutors charge 107 for “lying to avoid responsibility.”
• An Air Force officer inaccurately reports mileage on a travel voucher due to a GPS glitch. Finance submits the case to OSI for fraud and false statement.
• A soldier tries to explain a failed urinalysis by saying he “didn’t knowingly use anything.” CID interprets this as an intentional lie despite supplement contamination evidence.
• A Coast Guardsman tells CGIS he “never touched” a piece of government property. Video shows he moved it briefly during a cleanup detail. CGIS alleges deception.
• An enlisted member claims he was home when a barracks incident occurred. Investigators later find a blurry camera image of someone resembling him. OSI charges false statement based on mistaken identity.
• A service member denies “arguing loudly” during a neighbor complaint. Bodycam later shows raised voices but no violence. Prosecutors argue he lied to minimize misconduct.
• A soldier writes in a counseling statement that he “completed all required tasks.” A supervisor disagrees with one portion and refers the soldier for Article 107.
• During a DUI stop in Florida, a sailor incorrectly tells the officer he “had two drinks” when toxicology suggests more. NCIS treats this as a false official statement.
• A Marine writes an email summarizing an incident but forgets a small detail. NCIS alleges he intentionally omitted it to mislead the command.
• An Air Force member tries to downplay involvement in a minor barracks fight to avoid NJP. Investigators claim the omission was intentional deception.
• A soldier recants an initial statement after realizing his memory was wrong. Prosecutors argue the first statement was a lie.
• An accused in a sexual assault case gives multiple interviews over weeks. Natural inconsistencies arise under stress. NCIS claims they are intentional lies.
• A service member tries to protect a friend by saying he “didn’t see anything.” Later video shows he was nearby. Prosecutors aggressively pursue Article 107.

These scenarios show that Article 107 cases often arise not from criminal intent, but from human error, fear, confusion, or investigator pressure. The defense must expose these dynamics immediately.

How Article 107 Investigations Are Built

Article 107 investigations follow predictable patterns. Investigators search for inconsistencies, reinterpret statements through hindsight, and treat normal human memory gaps as deliberate deception. Understanding these patterns allows the defense to counter them effectively.

The “Gotcha” Strategy

Investigators often:

• ask rapid-fire questions while the accused is stressed
• write the statement themselves and ask the accused to sign it
• summarize statements inaccurately
• confront the accused with contradictions, real or imagined
• pressure the accused into phrasing things poorly

This creates the foundation for Article 107 charges—even when the accused did nothing wrong.

Manipulation of Written Statements

Investigators frequently type statements themselves. Problems include:

• incorrect paraphrasing
• overly broad language
• incomplete context
• misleading summaries
• failure to use the accused’s exact words

Once signed, these statements become the government’s most powerful weapon. Defense must challenge authorship, wording, context, and investigator credibility.

The Danger of Trying to “Explain Yourself”

Many Article 107 cases begin as attempts to clear up misunderstandings. Service members:

• downplay involvement to avoid embarrassment
• give incomplete summaries to keep the peace
• guess when unsure
• try to sound confident even when memories are unclear
• attempt to please investigators under pressure

Investigators weaponize these explanations to allege intentional deception.

Bodycam, Dashcam, and Audio Recordings

Florida’s heavy bodycam usage means Article 107 cases often rely on:

• statements made while emotional or intoxicated
• statements made mid-argument or during chaos
• statements made while confused or overwhelmed
• statements made without understanding the question

Investigators then compare these real-time statements to later, calmer interviews and claim “inconsistencies.”

CID / NCIS / OSI / CGIS Patterns

Each agency brings its own tendencies to false statement investigations:

• CID: pressure-based interviews, leading questions, inaccurate summaries.
• NCIS: tries to trap suspects in contradictions during sexual assault and domestic violence cases.
• OSI: heavy use of digital timelines, email contradictions, and log discrepancies.
• CGIS: frequently pairs Article 107 with federal obstruction-related allegations.

Digital Evidence Traps

Digital timelines often contradict statements due to:

• automatic phone timestamps
• location drift or GPS inaccuracies
• auto-save features
• delayed message delivery
• cloud backup delays
• misinterpretation of metadata

OSI, NCIS, CID, and CGIS often misunderstand or misinterpret digital metadata, creating false accusations of deception.

Witness Statement Inconsistencies

Witness memory is unreliable. But prosecutors treat:

• normal inconsistency
• time distortion
• alcohol-induced memory gaps
• stress-induced changes

as proof the accused intended to deceive.

Florida-Specific Investigative Issues

Florida’s law enforcement environment dramatically increases Article 107 risks:

• statements made amid nightlife chaos in Jacksonville, Pensacola, Tampa, Orlando, Miami
• statements influenced by fear during domestic disturbances
• misinterpretation of statements made during DUI stops
• bodycam capturing half-sentences that appear contradictory
• tourist-heavy areas where witnesses are intoxicated or unreliable

These dynamics produce countless Article 107 accusations that have nothing to do with intentional deception.

Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice—commonly known as “The General Article”—is the most powerful, flexible, and dangerous punitive article in the UCMJ. It criminalizes any conduct that:

• is prejudicial to good order and discipline, or
• brings discredit upon the armed forces, or
• constitutes a federal crime not otherwise listed in the UCMJ (“assimilated offenses”).

Because Article 134 is intentionally broad, prosecutors use it to charge behaviors that do not neatly fit into other UCMJ articles. It is the military’s “catch-all” statute—and a command’s favorite weapon when they want to punish conduct that is embarrassing, political, sexual, moral, social, or reputational, even when the behavior is not criminal in the civilian world.

Article 134 encompasses several well-known offenses, including:

• Adultery / Extramarital Sexual Conduct
• Fraternization
• Indecent Conduct / Indecent Exposure
• Obstruction of Justice (when not charged under 131b)
• Bullying, Harassment, and Cyber Misconduct
• Threats not rising to Article 115
• Child Pornography (assimilated federal crime)
• Disorderly Conduct off-base or on-base
• False Swearing (not under oath)
• Animal cruelty
• Solicitation (if not charged under 82)
• Stalking (pre-120a versions)
• Revenge porn (pre-117a versions)
• Bigamy
• Obscene acts, sexual acts in public, or online misconduct
• Possession of prohibited weapons

In short: if the command wants to punish a service member for something they can’t easily fit under another article, they use Article 134.

For service members stationed in or tied to Florida, Article 134 charges frequently arise from nightlife incidents in Jacksonville, Pensacola, Orlando, Tampa, Miami, and various beach towns. Civilian police reports, bodycam footage, and social media activity often become key evidence—even in cases where civilians would never face criminal charges.

Article 134 – Elements and Core Legal Framework

General Article Core Elements

To convict under Article 134, the government must prove:

• The accused engaged in certain conduct
• The conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline, OR
• The conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces

For assimilated crimes, they must prove the underlying offense as defined by federal law.

What Does “Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline” Mean?

It means the conduct had a direct and negative impact on:

• unit cohesion
• trust and respect
• the ability of the military to function
• discipline among service members

Commands often stretch this definition to absurd lengths. The defense must force them to prove an actual, reasonable impact—not a subjective opinion.

What Does “Service-Discrediting Conduct” Mean?

Conduct is considered service-discrediting if:

• a reasonable person would think it harms the military’s reputation
• the public would view it negatively if known
• it creates embarrassment for the command or service

This is extremely subjective—one of the reasons Article 134 is so dangerous.

Assimilated Federal Crimes under Article 134

Article 134 allows prosecutors to charge federal crimes not listed elsewhere in the UCMJ. These include:

• Possession of child pornography
• Wire fraud / mail fraud
• Interstate threats
• Cyber crimes
• Transporting stolen property

This makes Article 134 extremely broad and capable of absorbing almost any type of misconduct the military wants to punish.

Major Offense Categories under Article 134

1. Adultery / Extramarital Sexual Conduct

Adultery is a staple Article 134 charge. Commanders use it when:

• A service member has sexual relations outside marriage
• The affair causes disruption in the unit
• The conduct creates drama, jealousy, or professional distraction
• A spouse complains, or the affair becomes public

The government must show:

• a sexual act occurred
• at least one party was married to someone else
• the conduct harmed good order and discipline or discredited the service

Adultery cases often arise in:

• deployment environments
• training schools
• Florida TDY locations
• command teams or staff sections
• special operations and aviation communities

2. Fraternization

Fraternization involves improper relationships between officers and enlisted personnel. Prosecutors must show:

• a relationship existed
• the relationship compromised—or appeared to compromise—authority or professionalism
• the accused knew or should have known the relationship was improper
• the conduct harmed good order and discipline

Fraternization is also charged between senior NCOs and junior enlisted, depending on service regulations.

3. Indecent Conduct

This category covers:

• public sexual acts
• sex in barracks rooms with open doors or witnesses
• recording sexual acts without consent
• lewd acts in public or semi-public settings
• exposing oneself in inappropriate contexts

4. Obstruction of Justice (Article 134 version)

Though Article 131b covers obstruction specifically, prosecutors sometimes charge obstruction under Article 134 when:

• a service member warns someone of an investigation
• messages are deleted
• a witness is pressured, manipulated, or influenced
• someone tries to “clean up” social media

5. Child Pornography (Assimilated Crime)

Article 134 allows prosecution for possession, distribution, or viewing of child pornography under federal law. These cases are extremely serious and involve digital forensics, device seizures, and federal statutory definitions.

6. Disorderly Conduct

This includes:

• bar fights
• public disturbances
• intoxication in public
• behavior embarrassing to the command
• disturbing the peace on or off base

7. Online Misconduct

Article 134 frequently covers:

• revenge porn (pre-117a)
• harassment on social media
• posting sexual videos or photos
• inappropriate online relationships
• group chat misconduct
• extremist content

Digital evidence is often misinterpreted or taken out of context.

8. Assimilated Crimes (Federal Offenses Not in the UCMJ)

Under Article 134, service members can be charged with any federal crime that is not otherwise listed in the UCMJ, including:

• federal cyber crimes
• identity theft
• wire fraud
• receiving stolen property
• unlawful possession of devices or weapons