The line “there is no statute of limitations for sexual assault in the military” circulates widely. It is true for some offenses and some dates, and false for others, because Congress has moved the limitation rules for sexual offenses more than once and the rule that applies depends on when the alleged conduct occurred. A service member facing an allegation from years ago needs the actual framework, not the slogan. Here it is, and here is how it developed.
Which rule applies is a question of dates before it is a question of facts, and that is the order this firm works in: the date of the alleged conduct, then the subsection charged, then the version of Article 43 in force between the two. Taken out of order, the analysis fails no matter how carefully the rest of it is done.
An Overview of Article 120
Article 120 of the UCMJ covers rape, sexual assault, and related sexual misconduct. Offenses against a child fall under Article 120b. A conviction can carry forfeiture of pay, a punitive discharge, and confinement, with the maximum depending on the specification.
The General Rule and Its Exceptions
Article 43 of the UCMJ sets the default limitation period for most offenses at five years from the date of the offense. Certain categories fall outside that default. Congress has amended these categories several times, which is why two service members facing similar allegations can be subject to different rules depending on the dates involved.
The December 26, 2013 Line
A date this specific is worth confirming rather than assuming. Charge sheets state a date or a range for the alleged conduct, and where that range straddles the line the limitation question may differ across specifications in the same case. Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law has tried 181 Article 120 courts martial, and a range that crosses this date is examined specification by specification.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 eliminated the limitation period for offenses under Article 120(b) and Article 120b(b) of the UCMJ occurring on or after December 26, 2013.
The practical effect:
- Covered offenses occurring on or after December 26, 2013: no limitation period.
- Covered offenses occurring before that date: the five year period generally applies.
Two boundaries on that rule are worth stating because they are often missed. First, Article 43(a) removes the limitation period for rape and sexual assault, meaning Article 120(a) and (b) and their Article 120b counterparts. The contact offenses under Article 120(c) and (d) are not on that list and remain subject to the five year default. Second, where the victim had not attained the age of 16, Article 43(b)(2) treats an offense under Article 120, 120a, 120b, 120c, or 130 as a child abuse offense, and charges may be received during the life of the child or within ten years after the offense, whichever is longer. That rule turns on age 16, not 18.
This change was made by Congress in the statute itself. It was not created by a court decision, though courts have since applied it. In United States v. Moore, 79 M.J. 483, decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces on April 30, 2020, the court noted this statutory change while describing the framework. The holding in Moore addressed a different question: whether a convening authority’s amendment of a specification before referring it for a rehearing undid the tolling that occurred when the original specification was received. The court held that it did not. The period was tolled when the officer exercising summary court martial jurisdiction received the specification in December 2013, and the later amendments to conform the specification to the evidence did not restart it. The dismissal was reversed and the case returned for trial.
The Separate Question of Older Rape Prosecutions
A different line of cases addressed rape allegations from an earlier period. Between 1986 and 2006, Article 43 exempted from any limitation period offenses “punishable by death.” Whether rape qualified for that exemption was litigated for years.
In United States v. Briggs, decided by the Supreme Court in December 2020, the Court held that rape under the UCMJ as it stood during that period was an offense punishable by death for purposes of the limitations provision, and therefore not subject to the five year period. That ruling reinstated convictions that had been set aside on limitations grounds.
Briggs and the December 26, 2013 statutory change address different periods and different provisions. Neither one replaced the other.
Why the Date of the Alleged Offense Controls
This is the question that gets asked first in an old allegation, before anyone examines the facts. Mr. Jordan served as an Army prosecutor before opening his own practice, and the government has to answer the same question in order to prefer charges at all. Where the answer is close, it is litigated rather than assumed.
Because the rule turns on when the conduct is alleged to have occurred, two questions come first in any limitations analysis:
- What is the alleged date range? Specifications sometimes allege conduct “on or about” a date or across a span of months. Where that span crosses a statutory line, part of a specification may be time barred while another part is not.
- When were the sworn charges received by an officer exercising summary court martial jurisdiction? That receipt, not referral and not arraignment, is what tolls the period under Article 43.
Both questions are fact specific and both are litigated. A general summary cannot answer them for a particular case.
What This Means for Service Members
There is a practical reason to raise this at the start of a case rather than at trial. A limitation defense, where it exists, is dispositive, and whether it exists is fixed on the day charges are preferred. This firm defends Article 120 allegations in all six branches, and where the conduct alleged is old, the calendar is examined before the facts are.
The removal of the limitation period for covered offenses means that allegations from many years earlier can still be charged. For the accused, that raises practical problems: witnesses move or become unavailable, records are destroyed under routine retention schedules, and recollection of specific dates fades. These are defense considerations worth raising early, not procedural technicalities.
Related Case Results
Where no limitation period applies, the defense is built on the evidence rather than the calendar. Results include a child sexual assault charge under Article 120b dismissed at court martial and a not guilty finding on child sexual assault for an Army E-8 at Fort Leonard Wood.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Every case turns on its own facts.
Speak With a Military Defense Attorney
If you are facing an allegation under Article 120 and the timing may matter, the analysis starts with the alleged dates and the charging history. Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law is a former Army JAG officer representing service members at installations worldwide.
Call (888) 643-6254 to discuss your case.