UCMJ ARTICLE 84: EFFECTING UNLAWFUL ENLISTMENT, APPOINTMENT, OR SEPARATION

Executive Summary

Key Takeaway: UCMJ Article 84 criminalizes knowingly causing or facilitating the unlawful enlistment, appointment, or separation of any person in the armed forces. Conviction requires proof that the accused caused or procured an enlistment, appointment, or separation, that the action was unlawful (the person was legally ineligible or lacked proper authority), and that the accused knew of the unlawful nature at the time of the act. Maximum punishment includes up to 5 years confinement, dishonorable discharge, and total forfeiture of pay and allowances.

What UCMJ Article 84 Covers: Knowingly facilitating enlistment of persons who fail to meet eligibility requirements, assisting in fraudulent appointment processes by concealing disqualifying factors, procuring separation of service members without proper legal authority, creating or using false documents to enable unlawful enlistment or appointment, and any knowing participation in schemes to circumvent military personnel regulations governing entry into or exit from service.

Critical Article 84 Elements:

• The accused must have caused or procured the unlawful action (mere knowledge without active participation is insufficient to establish this element)
• The enlistment, appointment, or separation must have been unlawful (the person was ineligible under applicable regulations or proper authority was lacking)
• Knowledge of the unlawful nature is required at the time of the act (the accused must have known the material disqualifying facts or lack of authority)
• The accused's own enlistment or separation need not be unlawful (Article 84 applies to facilitating others' unlawful personnel actions)
• Passive assistance constitutes the offense only where a legal duty to act exists based on position and responsibilities

Why UCMJ Article 84 Cases Present Unique Challenges: Knowledge must be proven through circumstantial evidence as direct admissions are rare, the line between innocent assistance and criminal facilitation depends heavily on what the accused knew and when, cases often involve document examination and personnel regulation interpretation requiring expert testimony, co-participants including the person who enlisted or separated unlawfully may provide inconsistent accounts, and determining whether an enlistment or separation was truly "unlawful" requires detailed analysis of complex eligibility requirements and proper waiver authority.

Immediate Steps if Under Investigation: Exercise your right to remain silent under Article 31(b) if questioned about your role in another person's enlistment, appointment, or separation, do not attempt to explain your assistance or justify your actions without defense counsel present as explanations often establish the knowledge element, preserve all documents and communications related to the personnel action including emails, forms, and conversations that may demonstrate what you knew, do not discuss the investigation with the person who enlisted or separated or other potential witnesses, and consult with experienced military defense counsel immediately before providing any statement about your involvement or knowledge.

---

Understanding UCMJ Article 84

Article 84 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice addresses the offense of knowingly causing or procuring an unlawful enlistment, appointment, or separation. This provision allows prosecution when a service member or other person subject to the UCMJ facilitates personnel actions that violate military regulations governing who may enter or leave military service.

The policy behind Article 84 recognizes that the integrity of military personnel systems depends on strict compliance with eligibility requirements and proper procedures. When individuals knowingly assist others in circumventing these requirements—whether to help ineligible persons enter service, facilitate improper appointments, or enable unauthorized separations—they undermine military readiness, command authority, and the fair application of personnel standards.

Article 84 cases frequently arise in recruiting contexts where personnel may be tempted to overlook disqualifying factors to meet enlistment quotas, in appointment processes where credentials or qualifications may be misrepresented, or in separation proceedings where proper authority or procedures are not followed. The statute applies regardless of the accused's motive, whether financial gain, friendship, or misguided assistance.

Elements of Article 84

To obtain a conviction under Article 84, the prosecution must prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1: The accused caused or procured the enlistment, appointment, or separation of a person

The government must establish that the accused actively participated in bringing about the personnel action. This element requires more than mere knowledge or passive presence. The accused must have taken affirmative steps that caused or substantially contributed to the unlawful enlistment, appointment, or separation.

Forms of causing or procuring:

• Directly facilitating the personnel action by completing forms, providing information, or making recommendations
• Assisting in concealing disqualifying information from proper authorities
• Creating, altering, or providing false documents to support eligibility
• Knowingly processing personnel actions despite awareness of ineligibility
• Advising or counseling persons on how to circumvent eligibility requirements
• Using position or authority to override proper procedures or eligibility determinations

Active participation required:

Merely knowing about someone else's unlawful enlistment, appointment, or separation is insufficient. The accused must have taken concrete actions that facilitated or enabled the personnel action. Both active facilitation (directly assisting) and, in certain circumstances, passive assistance may satisfy this element. However, passive assistance (failure to prevent) constitutes "effecting" the action only where the accused had a legal duty to act based on position and responsibilities (such as recruiters with duty to verify eligibility or personnel officers with duty to ensure compliance). Mere nonfeasance without a legal duty to act does not satisfy the "causing or procuring" element.

Examples:

• A recruiter who knowingly processes enlistment paperwork for an applicant who failed required entrance examinations
• A personnel officer who creates false documents showing educational credentials the applicant does not possess
• A commander who approves a separation without proper authority or in violation of regulations
• An administrator who alters medical records to conceal disqualifying conditions

Element 2: The enlistment, appointment, or separation was unlawful

The government must prove that the personnel action violated applicable law or regulations. An enlistment, appointment, or separation is unlawful when the person was legally ineligible under governing regulations, proper authority was lacking, or required procedures were not followed.

Common bases for unlawful enlistment:

• Failure to meet age requirements
• Failure to meet educational requirements (lack of high school diploma or equivalent when required)
• Failure to meet medical or physical standards
• Failure to meet moral character standards (undisclosed criminal history)
• Failure to meet citizenship or immigration status requirements
• Failure to pass required entrance examinations
• Fraudulent concealment of disqualifying factors

Common bases for unlawful appointment:

• Lack of required qualifications or credentials for commissioned officer positions
• Fraudulent representation of educational degrees or professional certifications
• Concealment of disqualifying background information
• Lack of proper appointing authority

Common bases for unlawful separation:

• Separation without proper legal authority
• Failure to follow required procedures for type of separation
• Separation in violation of service member's legal rights
• Processing separation based on false information

The determination of whether a personnel action was unlawful requires analysis of applicable regulations at the time. Regulations governing enlistment, appointment, and separation are detailed and complex. Expert testimony regarding personnel regulations may be necessary to establish this element.

Waivers and authorized exceptions: If a proper waiver was granted by competent authority for a disqualifying factor, or if an authorized exception to normal requirements applied, the personnel action was lawful and the "unlawful" element fails. Defense may establish that apparent disqualifications were actually waived through proper channels or that the person qualified under applicable exceptions to standard eligibility requirements. The existence of proper waiver authority and procedures is a critical consideration in determining whether a personnel action was truly unlawful.

Element 3: The accused knew the enlistment, appointment, or separation was unlawful

Knowledge is a critical element. The accused must have known at the time of facilitating the personnel action that it was unlawful—specifically, that a material disqualifying fact existed (such as failure to meet age, education, medical, or moral requirements) or that proper authority was lacking. The accused need not know the specific regulation or its precise requirements; knowledge of the material facts that render the action unlawful is sufficient.

Proving knowledge:

Knowledge is typically established through circumstantial evidence:

• The accused's access to information revealing ineligibility
• The accused's position and responsibilities (recruiters and personnel officers are presumed to know eligibility requirements)
• Documentation showing the accused was informed of disqualifying factors
• The accused's actions to conceal information or circumvent normal procedures
• Statements by the accused acknowledging awareness of problems
• Training and experience demonstrating the accused should have known requirements

Direct vs. constructive knowledge:

Article 84 requires actual knowledge, not merely constructive knowledge (what the accused should have known). However, deliberate ignorance or willful blindness may constitute actual knowledge. If the accused deliberately avoided learning facts to maintain deniability, courts may find knowledge was present.

Material disqualifying facts:

The accused must have known material facts that rendered the personnel action unlawful. For example, knowledge that an applicant failed entrance examinations, lacked required educational credentials, or had disqualifying medical conditions constitutes sufficient knowledge even if the accused did not know the precise regulatory section governing that requirement. Knowledge of the disqualifying fact, not knowledge of the regulation itself, is what matters.

Timing of knowledge:

The accused must have possessed knowledge at the time of causing or procuring the personnel action. Knowledge acquired afterward does not establish guilt, though it may be relevant to show the accused's earlier state of mind.

Common Scenarios Involving Article 84

Article 84 charges frequently arise in specific contexts:

Recruiting Violations

Scenario: Recruiters face pressure to meet enlistment quotas. Some may be tempted to overlook disqualifying factors or assist applicants in concealing information that would render them ineligible.

Examples:

• Allowing applicants who failed entrance examinations to retake tests under improper circumstances
• Coaching applicants on how to conceal criminal history, medical conditions, or drug use
• Processing enlistments despite knowledge that educational credentials are fraudulent
• Falsifying documents to show applicants meet requirements they do not satisfy

Case precedent: United States v. Hightower, 1 M.J. 371 (C.M.A. 1976) involved a recruiter who assisted applicants in circumventing entrance examination failures. The court held that knowingly processing enlistments for ineligible applicants violated Article 84.

Fraudulent Credentials

Scenario: Applicants for enlistment or appointment provide false educational credentials, professional certifications, or other qualifications. Personnel who know the credentials are fraudulent but process the personnel action anyway may face Article 84 charges.

Examples:

• Accepting high school diplomas known to be from diploma mills or fraudulent institutions
• Processing officer appointments based on college degrees the applicant does not possess
• Accepting professional certifications that have been forged or falsified

Case precedent: United States v. White, 36 M.J. 284 (C.M.A. 1993) involved personnel who participated in a scheme to enlist individuals using fraudulent high school diplomas. The court affirmed that knowing participation in such schemes constitutes Article 84 violations.

Medical Disqualifications

Scenario: Applicants conceal medical conditions that would disqualify them from service. Personnel who assist in concealing these conditions or who process enlistments despite knowledge of disqualifying medical issues may be charged.

Examples:

• Altering or failing to report medical examination results showing disqualifying conditions
• Coaching applicants on how to conceal medical history
• Processing enlistments despite documented medical disqualifications

Separation Violations

Scenario: Personnel facilitate separations without proper authority, in violation of regulations, or based on false information.

Examples:

• Processing administrative separations without proper command authority
• Facilitating separations to help service members avoid legal proceedings or deployments
• Creating false documentation to support separation eligibility

Maximum Punishment Under Article 84

Article 84 violations carry significant maximum penalties:

Maximum authorized punishment:

• Dishonorable discharge
• Forfeiture of all pay and allowances
• Reduction to the lowest enlisted grade
• Confinement for 5 years

Actual sentences depend on:

• The nature and seriousness of the unlawful personnel action
• The number of persons whose enlistments, appointments, or separations were affected
• Whether the accused profited financially
• The accused's motive and degree of culpability
• The accused's military service record
• Aggravating and mitigating circumstances

Beyond court-martial sentences, Article 84 convictions create federal criminal records affecting security clearances, VA benefits eligibility, civilian employment opportunities, professional licensing, and other aspects of post-service life.

If you are under investigation for allegedly facilitating an unlawful enlistment, appointment, or separation, contact Joseph L. Jordan at (888) 643-6254 immediately. Early legal intervention can significantly impact whether charges are filed and the ultimate outcome of your case.

Defenses to Article 84 Charges

Defending Article 84 charges requires challenging one or more elements the government must prove:

Lack of Knowledge

If the accused did not know the enlistment, appointment, or separation was unlawful, conviction cannot be sustained. Defense may establish:

• The accused lacked access to information revealing ineligibility
• Disqualifying factors were not apparent from documents or information available to the accused
• The accused reasonably relied on representations by the applicant or other personnel
• The accused's position and training did not include responsibility for determining eligibility
• The accused made reasonable efforts to verify eligibility but was provided false information

Knowledge must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If evidence supports both knowing and unknowing conduct, the government has not met its burden.

No Unlawful Personnel Action

If the enlistment, appointment, or separation was actually lawful under applicable regulations, no Article 84 violation occurred. Defense may establish:

• The person met all eligibility requirements under regulations in effect at the time
• Disqualifying factors did not exist or were waivable under proper authority
• A proper waiver was in fact granted by competent authority
• Proper procedures and authority were followed for the separation
• Alleged defects in the personnel action were technical rather than substantive

This defense requires detailed analysis of personnel regulations and their application to the specific circumstances.

Did Not Cause or Procure

If the accused did not actively participate in facilitating the personnel action, the first element is not satisfied. Defense may show:

• The accused had no involvement in the personnel action
• The accused's role was ministerial without discretion or knowledge
• Others caused or procured the unlawful action without the accused's participation
• The accused attempted to prevent or correct the unlawful action
• The accused had no legal duty to act and passive nonfeasance alone is insufficient

Mere presence or incidental involvement is insufficient for conviction. The government must prove active facilitation or procurement, or failure to act when a legal duty existed.

Good Faith Reliance on Authority

If the accused relied in good faith on determinations by proper authority that the personnel action was lawful, this may negate knowledge. Defense may establish:

• Command or higher authority approved the action after review
• Legal or personnel specialists advised that the action was proper
• The accused reasonably believed proper authority had determined eligibility
• The accused followed established procedures and obtained required approvals

Good faith reliance must be reasonable under the circumstances. Willful blindness or deliberate avoidance of obvious problems does not constitute good faith.

Advice of Counsel

If the accused consulted with legal counsel regarding the lawfulness of the personnel action and received advice that it was proper, this may provide a defense depending on the reasonableness of the reliance and the accuracy of information provided to counsel.

Entrapment

If government agents induced the accused to commit an offense the accused was not predisposed to commit, entrapment may provide a defense. This defense rarely applies in Article 84 cases but may be available if undercover operations were involved.

Your Rights During Article 84 Investigations

Service members under investigation for Article 84 violations retain important constitutional and statutory protections:

Article 31(b) Rights

Before any questioning regarding suspected offenses, you must receive warnings:

• You are suspected of an offense
• The nature of the suspected offense
• You have the right to remain silent
• Any statement may be used against you in court-martial or other proceedings

These warnings apply to all official questioning about offenses, regardless of custody.

Right to Counsel

You have the right to consult with defense counsel before and during questioning:

• Right to appointed military defense counsel at no cost
• Right to retain civilian counsel at your own expense
• Right to have counsel present during any questioning
• Right to stop questioning at any time to consult with counsel

Protection Against Self-Incrimination

You cannot be compelled to provide incriminating statements. Silence cannot be used as evidence of guilt. This protection applies throughout investigation and prosecution.

Fourth Amendment Protections

You are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. Investigators must have proper authorization to search your workspace, files, electronic devices, or other property. Do not consent to searches without first consulting with defense counsel.

Special Considerations in Article 84 Investigations

Article 84 investigations present unique considerations:

Document examination: Investigators thoroughly examine enlistment documents, personnel files, medical records, educational credentials, and other records to establish both the unlawful nature of the personnel action and the accused's knowledge.

Testimony from affected persons: The person who enlisted, was appointed, or separated unlawfully may be interviewed. Their statements about what they told the accused and what the accused knew become critical evidence.

Personnel regulation expertise: Determining whether personnel actions were lawful requires expertise in military personnel regulations. Investigators may consult with personnel specialists or legal advisors.

Multiple suspects: Article 84 cases often involve multiple personnel who participated in facilitating unlawful personnel actions. Investigators may seek cooperation from some participants against others.

Administrative vs. criminal proceedings: Personnel involved in unlawful enlistments, appointments, or separations may face both administrative action (reprimands, relief from duties) and criminal prosecution.

The Importance of Early Legal Consultation

Article 84 cases often turn on what the accused knew and when. Statements made during initial investigation attempting to explain involvement or justify actions frequently establish the knowledge element and provide evidence of active participation.

Consulting with experienced military defense attorneys at the earliest indication of investigation provides critical benefits:

Protection of rights: Counsel ensures Article 31(b) rights are properly invoked and respected, preventing statements that could establish knowledge or participation.

Document preservation: Counsel ensures that exculpatory documents showing lack of knowledge or reasonable reliance on others are preserved and documented.

Regulation analysis: Early legal consultation allows thorough analysis of whether the personnel action was truly unlawful under applicable regulations, potentially preventing charges if the action was actually proper or properly waived.

Witness strategy: Independent investigation can reveal what other participants will say and whether their accounts are credible.

Strategic positioning: Early counsel involvement allows presentation of context showing lack of knowledge or proper reliance on authority before charging decisions are made.

When You Should Contact Defense Counsel

Consult with military defense counsel immediately if:

• You are questioned about your role in another person's enlistment, appointment, or separation
• Investigators ask about your knowledge of disqualifying factors or eligibility requirements
• You learn that personnel actions you processed are being investigated as unlawful
• You are asked about documents related to enlistments, appointments, or separations
• Command indicates concern about recruiting or personnel processing irregularities
• You become aware that credentials or information you relied upon may have been false
• You are relieved from recruiting or personnel duties pending investigation

The earlier you consult counsel, the better positioned you are to protect your rights and build an effective defense.

Why Choose Joseph L. Jordan for Article 84 Defense

Joseph L. Jordan is a former Army Judge Advocate with extensive experience prosecuting and defending courts-martial. As a former military prosecutor, he understands how the government establishes knowledge in Article 84 cases, proves that personnel actions were unlawful, and connects the accused to active participation in facilitating those actions.

Our defense approach includes:

Thorough document analysis: We review all enlistment documents, personnel files, and records to determine whether the personnel action was truly unlawful and what information was available to the accused demonstrating ineligibility.

Regulation expertise: We analyze applicable personnel regulations to determine whether claimed violations actually occurred or whether the personnel action was proper under regulations in effect at the time, including proper waiver procedures.

Knowledge challenge: We develop evidence showing the accused lacked knowledge of disqualifying factors or reasonably relied on information provided by others.

Witness investigation: We interview participants to establish what information was shared with the accused and whether the accused had reason to know of ineligibility.

Technical defense: We identify regulatory compliance issues, procedural defects in the investigation, or charging errors that may provide grounds for dismissal or amendment.

We represent service members worldwide at every stage of Article 84 investigation and prosecution.

Immediate Steps if You Are Under Investigation

If you are being investigated for possible Article 84 violations:

Invoke your right to remain silent: Do not explain your involvement, justify your actions, or describe what you knew without defense counsel present. State clearly: "I wish to exercise my right to remain silent under Article 31 and consult with defense counsel before answering questions."

Do not alter or destroy documents: Preserve all documents related to the personnel action including forms, emails, notes, and other records. Destruction creates separate criminal liability and adverse inferences.

Do not contact affected persons: Do not discuss the investigation with the person who enlisted, was appointed, or separated, or with other personnel who may be witnesses. Such communications may be used as evidence of obstruction.

Document your recollection: Write down what you knew and when you knew it, what information you relied upon, and what you understood about the personnel action while memory is fresh.

Contact defense counsel immediately: Call (888) 643-6254 to speak with Joseph L. Jordan about your case. Early consultation protects your rights and strengthens your defense.

---

Frequently Asked Questions About UCMJ Article 84

What is Article 84 of the UCMJ?

Article 84 criminalizes knowingly causing or procuring the unlawful enlistment, appointment, or separation of any person in the armed forces. The offense targets those who facilitate personnel actions for persons who are legally ineligible or without proper authority.

What elements must prosecutors prove for an Article 84 conviction?

Prosecutors must establish that the accused caused or procured an enlistment, appointment, or separation, that the personnel action was unlawful (the person was ineligible or proper authority was lacking), and that the accused knew of material disqualifying facts or lack of authority at the time.

What makes an enlistment, appointment, or separation "unlawful"?

A personnel action is unlawful when the person fails to meet eligibility requirements under applicable regulations (age, education, medical, moral character, citizenship), required procedures are not followed, proper authority is lacking, or the action is based on fraudulent information or concealment of disqualifying factors. However, if a proper waiver was granted by competent authority, the personnel action becomes lawful.

Does the accused's own enlistment need to be unlawful?

No. Article 84 criminalizes facilitating others' unlawful personnel actions. The accused's own enlistment, appointment, or separation may be completely proper while they are charged with helping someone else enter or leave service unlawfully.

What level of involvement is required for Article 84?

The accused must have actively caused or procured the personnel action. Mere knowledge without participation is insufficient. Passive assistance (failure to prevent) satisfies this element only where the accused had a legal duty to act based on position and responsibilities (such as recruiters or personnel officers). Mere nonfeasance without a legal duty does not constitute causing or procuring.

How do prosecutors prove the accused "knew" the action was unlawful?

Knowledge is typically proven through circumstantial evidence including the accused's position and training (recruiters are expected to know eligibility requirements), access to information revealing ineligibility, documentation showing the accused was informed of problems, actions to conceal information or circumvent procedures, and statements acknowledging awareness of issues. The accused must have known material disqualifying facts; knowledge of specific regulatory provisions is not required.

Can someone be convicted if they reasonably believed the person was eligible?

If the accused lacked actual knowledge of material disqualifying facts, Article 84 does not apply. Reasonable mistakes based on incomplete or inaccurate information may negate the knowledge element. However, willful blindness or deliberate ignorance may be treated as actual knowledge.

What are common Article 84 scenarios?

Common scenarios include recruiters knowingly processing enlistments for applicants who failed entrance examinations, personnel accepting fraudulent educational credentials or professional certifications, assisting in concealment of medical disqualifications, and facilitating separations without proper authority or in violation of procedures.

What is the maximum punishment under Article 84?

Maximum punishment includes dishonorable discharge, total forfeiture of pay and allowances, reduction to the lowest enlisted grade, and confinement for 5 years. Actual sentences depend on the nature of the violation, number of persons affected, whether financial gain was involved, and the accused's service record.

What are the main defenses to Article 84 charges?

Main defenses include lack of knowledge (the accused did not know of material disqualifying facts), no unlawful personnel action (the enlistment, appointment, or separation was actually proper under regulations or a proper waiver was granted), did not cause or procure (the accused was not actively involved or had no legal duty to act), good faith reliance on authority (the accused reasonably relied on determinations by proper authority), and advice of counsel.

Do waivers affect Article 84 liability?

Yes. If a proper waiver was granted by competent authority for a disqualifying factor, the personnel action becomes lawful and the "unlawful" element fails. Defense can establish that apparent disqualifications were actually waived through proper channels or that authorized exceptions to standard requirements applied.

Can Article 84 charges be based on paperwork errors?

Minor technical errors in paperwork typically do not constitute unlawful enlistments, appointments, or separations. Article 84 requires substantial violations of eligibility requirements or procedures. The government must prove the personnel action was actually unlawful, not merely imperfectly documented.

What role do personnel regulations play in Article 84 cases?

Personnel regulations define eligibility requirements and proper procedures. Whether a personnel action was "unlawful" depends on interpretation and application of these regulations. Expert testimony regarding regulations may be necessary. Detailed regulatory analysis is often critical to both prosecution and defense.

Can recruiters be charged even if they were trying to meet quotas?

Yes. Motive is not an element of Article 84. Even if the accused was motivated by pressure to meet enlistment goals rather than personal gain, knowingly facilitating unlawful enlistments violates Article 84. However, motive may be considered in sentencing.

What happens to the person who enlisted or separated unlawfully?

The person who enlisted, was appointed, or separated unlawfully may face their own charges or administrative action depending on their role and culpability. However, prosecution of the facilitator under Article 84 does not depend on whether the other person is prosecuted. Both, either, or neither may be charged depending on circumstances.

How do Article 84 investigations typically proceed?

Investigations often begin with discovery of irregularities in personnel records, reports of fraudulent credentials, or complaints about improper recruiting practices. Investigators examine documents, interview the persons who enlisted or separated, interview the accused and other personnel involved, and consult with personnel regulation experts.

Should someone facing Article 84 charges talk to investigators?

No. Exercise Article 31(b) rights and consult with defense counsel before making any statements. Attempts to explain involvement or justify actions typically provide evidence establishing knowledge and participation. Defense counsel can evaluate the evidence and determine appropriate responses.

---

For immediate consultation regarding Article 84 charges or investigations, contact Joseph L. Jordan at (888) 643-6254. Experienced military defense representation for service members worldwide.

---

Important Notice: This information is provided for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Every case involves unique facts requiring individualized legal analysis. Reading this information does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice specific to your situation, consult with a qualified military defense attorney.