The investigator says it is a routine interview. You signed the form, initialed the voucher, or gave the statement because your supervisor told you to, because the process had always worked that way, or because you did not think the discrepancy would matter.
Now you are the subject of a CID investigation. Your command has been notified. Your security clearance is suspended. Article 107 of the UCMJ-making false official statements-carries a dishonorable discharge and five years of confinement. The government is treating this as a crime. You need to treat it the same way. Article 107, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 907, prohibits false official statements made with the intent to deceive. The charge is broader than most service members expect. It covers signed forms, verbal statements to investigators, unit readiness reports, travel vouchers, and formal statements in administrative proceedings.
What it does not cover-though prosecutors sometimes forget this-is every error, miscalculation, or inconsistency a service member has ever submitted on a military form. The specific intent to deceive is an element the government must prove. That burden belongs to them. Joseph L. Jordan is a former Army JAG Officer who served as a prosecutor and chief of justice, including as a former military prosecutor at Fort Cavazos, Texas and with the 2nd Infantry Division in South Korea. He has stood at the government’s table in Article 107 proceedings. He understands the cases prosecutors believe are airtight-and the ones that fall apart when defense counsel demands proof of every element.
If you are under investigation or have been charged under Article 107, call **(888) 367-9489** now for a free consultation.
The Charge. Article 107 charges you with making a false official statement with intent to deceive. The government alleges you made a statement you knew to be untrue in an official military context, with the purpose of deceiving the recipient.
What the Government Must Prove. That you made a statement, that the statement was official, that the statement was false, that you knew it was false at the time, and that you intended to deceive. Every element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Where the Case Breaks. Intent to deceive is the most contested element. A mistaken statement, a statement made under duress, or a statement the accused believed to be true at the time does not satisfy the intent element.
Defense counsel examines the circumstances under which the statement was made.
What Makes This Dangerous. A conviction carries up to 5 years confinement and a dishonorable discharge. The collateral consequences are severe: a federal conviction for a deception offense destroys credibility in security clearance adjudications and professional licensing.
What to Do Right Now. Do not make additional statements to investigators. Invoke your Article 31(b) rights. Call (888) 367-9489 for a free consultation.
False official statement cases look simple on paper. A document is wrong; the accused signed it; the charge is filed. But the elements of Article 107 do more legal work than that appearance suggests.
Element 1: The accused signed an official document or made an official statement.
Not every document a service member completes is an “official statement” for Article 107 purposes. The statement or document must be official-made in the performance of military duties or in connection with a military proceeding or process. A personal communication, a private message, or an informal remark generally does not qualify. The government must establish both that the statement was made and that it was official in the legal sense.
Element 2: The document or statement was false in certain particulars.
The government must identify what was false and how. Generalized allegations that a record was “inaccurate” are not sufficient. The specific false representation must be proven. Errors, estimates, approximations, and misremembered facts are not the same as falsehoods. The government must show the statement was actually, factually false-not merely imprecise or unfavorable to the government’s position.
Element 3: The accused knew the statement was false at the time it was made.
This is the element that separates Article 107 from honest error. The accused must have known the statement was false when it was signed or made. A service member who completes a form in good faith based on the information available-even if that information later proves incorrect-has not committed an this offense offense. Proof of knowledge is proof of a mental state at a specific moment in time. That is difficult to establish beyond a reasonable doubt.
Element 4: The false statement was made with intent to deceive.
Specific intent to deceive is required. The government must prove the accused made the statement with the purpose of causing another person to believe something the accused knew to be false. Negligence, carelessness, and even recklessness are not sufficient. Intent is a conclusion about state of mind that must be drawn from circumstantial evidence-and every piece of that evidence is subject to challenge. When the government cannot prove all four elements beyond a reasonable doubt, the charge fails. Every element is contestable. None is conceded.
The scope of what counts as an official statement is one of the most frequently litigated questions in Article 107 cases. Not every communication made by a service member in a military context qualifies. Statements that typically qualify:
Statements that may not qualify:
The line between official and unofficial is drawn by case law and the specific facts of each case. Defense counsel examines exactly what was said, in what context, to whom, and whether that communication rose to the level of an official statement within the meaning of the UCMJ.
Article 107 is charged in a wide variety of contexts. The defense analysis depends heavily on the specific facts. Travel voucher fraud: Arguably the most common Article 107 fact pattern. A service member claims mileage, per diem, or lodging that differs from actual expenses. The government must prove the voucher was false and that the accused knew it was false when filed. Errors in rate calculation, honest mistakes about entitlements, and reliance on supervisor instructions to file a certain way all undercut the intent element. False statements to investigators: Service members are sometimes questioned by CID, NCIS, or OSI before they understand the full scope of the investigation. A statement that turns out to be inaccurate-because the service member misremembered, misunderstood the question, or stated what they believed to be true-is not a false official statement in the Article 107 sense.
The government must prove not only that the statement was incorrect but that the accused knew it was incorrect when they made it. Fraudulent administrative forms: Leave requests, reenlistment documents, and physical fitness records all qualify as official documents for Article 107 purposes. These cases often turn on what the accused knew at the time, not what the accurate answer would have been in retrospect. Unit readiness and inspection reports: Officers and NCOs who submit readiness or equipment reports containing inaccuracies face Article 107 charges. The government must show the reporting individual knew the report was false-not merely that the report differed from the ground truth. In complex operational environments, the distinction between what a reporting officer knew and what was actually occurring is frequently litigated.
The Manual for Courts-Martial, 2024 edition, sets the maximum punishment for Article 107 at:
|
Element |
Maximum Punishment |
|
Punitive discharge |
Dishonorable discharge |
|
Confinement |
5 years |
|
Forfeiture |
All pay and allowances |
Five years of confinement is among the longer maximums in the UCMJ for a non-violent offense. The dishonorable discharge designation-equivalent in practical consequence to a felony conviction-follows the service member for life. The government frequently uses Article 107 charges in combination with other charges: larceny under Article 121 (larceny), fraud under Article 132, or conduct unbecoming under Article 133. When multiple charges are filed together, the sentencing exposure compounds. The defense must address each charge on its own terms while managing the overall case strategy.
For offenses committed on or after 27 December 2023, Executive Order 14103 restructured military sentencing. The panel no longer determines the sentence. The military judge imposes sentence within the parameters established by MCM 2024 and the Rules for Courts-Martial. In Article 107 cases, this matters because:
Every Article 107 case has weak points. These are the five most reliable fault lines.
Vulnerability 1: The government cannot prove intent to deceive.
Intent is the hardest element to prove in an Article 107 case. Prosecutors rely on circumstantial evidence: the accused benefited financially, the error was too significant to be accidental, or the accused had the knowledge to know better. Defense counsel attacks each inference. Benefit does not equal intent. Magnitude does not equal intentionality. Knowledge of a field does not prove knowledge of a specific falsehood at a specific moment. Without direct evidence of deceptive intent-which rarely exists-the government is building its case on inference. Inference can be dismantled.
Vulnerability 2: The statement was not “official” within the meaning of Article 107.
In false official statement and related fraud cases, Jordan has secured retention after administrative separation proceedings at Fort Cavazos where the government alleged fraud and false statements by an E-6.
Courts have consistently held that the statement must arise in a military official capacity. Informal communications, personal statements, and communications outside the scope of official duty do not satisfy this element. If the government has charged a statement as official when its nature and context place it outside that definition, the charge is defective.
Vulnerability 3: The accused relied on established practice, supervisor direction, or established military practices.
Many Article 107 cases arise in environments where the “false” practice was systemic-everyone filed the voucher the same way, the supervisor told the accused what to write, or the practice was so widespread that no individual service member had reason to believe it was wrong. Reliance on supervisor instruction and established practice is directly relevant to the intent element. If the accused did what they were told or what everyone around them did, the inference of deceptive intent is substantially weakened.
Vulnerability 4: The statement was a mistake, not a falsehood.
Errors happen on military forms. Regulations are complex, entitlement calculations are intricate, and service members often lack the time or training to verify every figure they submit. A false entry made because the accused misunderstood the applicable regulation, miscalculated an entitlement, or misremembered a fact is not an Article 107 offense. The government must prove the accused knew the entry was wrong-not that the entry was wrong.
Vulnerability 5: The investigation itself contaminated the evidence.
CID and NCIS investigators sometimes conduct interviews before suspects invoke their Article 31(b) rights. Statements obtained in violation of Article 31(b)-the military equivalent of Miranda-are subject to suppression. If the accused made statements during an interview that was not preceded by proper rights advisement, those statements cannot be used at trial. Defense counsel reviews the investigation file for procedural violations before trial preparation begins.
The consequences of an Article 107 conviction stack well beyond the courtroom. A dishonorable discharge eliminates VA health care eligibility, VA education benefits under the GI Bill, and VA home loan guaranty. Federal firearms prohibitions apply under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(6). Federal civilian employment-especially in any financial, administrative, or government-adjacent role-is severely restricted. Many states treat a dishonorable discharge as a felony conviction for professional licensing purposes. Nursing, accounting, law, financial services, and law enforcement licenses are all potentially affected. Article 107 convictions also carry a specific reputational weight. The offense is characterized as a fraud and dishonesty offense on service records and in background investigations. Government security clearance adjudicators treat dishonesty-predicate offenses with particular severity.
A clearance revocation in any defense, intelligence, or federal contractor role is likely following a charged offense conviction-regardless of whether the clearance was previously in good standing. For service members who file fraudulent financial claims, the government may also pursue repayment through debt collection, wage garnishment, or civil judgment concurrent with the criminal proceeding. The financial consequences extend beyond any fine imposed at sentencing. Confinement compounds these effects: lost retirement points, broken career progression, and the practical obstacles of post-confinement reintegration. A service member who entered the military with a career plan and a future security clearance position cannot absorb five years of confinement without those plans collapsing entirely.
Charged Under Article 107? Decisions Made Now Determine Outcomes Later.
Article 107 investigations often begin with what the government calls a “routine interview.” Nothing about the investigation is routine. The statements you make now will be used in your court-martial. Evidence is preserved or lost in the first days of an investigation. Former military prosecutor Joseph L. Jordan has represented service members in Article 107 cases from investigation through court-martial.
Call (888) 367-9489 now for a free consultation. Available 24/7.
Joseph L. Jordan is a former Army JAG Officer who served as both a prosecutor and defense counsel, including as a former military prosecutor at Fort Cavazos, Texas. He has prosecuted Article 107 cases from the government’s side-which means he knows precisely how the government builds an intent-to-deceive argument, what evidence they prioritize, and where the case is most vulnerable before the charge sheet is ever signed. Mr. Jordan practices exclusively in military law. He is highly experienced in criminal trial advocacy. He represents service members at courts-martial, Article 32 preliminary hearings, and administrative separation boards across all military branches and all installations worldwide.
Mr. Jordan’s practice covers the full range of UCMJ offenses across all six branches of the Armed Forces: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and Space Force. He has represented more than 1,000 service members, taken 250+ cases to verdict, and tried cases at installations across the United States, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Distance is never a barrier. When a service member’s career is at stake, Jordan gets on a plane.
When you retain Jordan for an Article 107 case, you are retaining a former military prosecutor who has seen how these cases are made and who now makes the defense instead. military defense attorney Joseph L. Jordan has defended service members facing these charges across all military branches. His Article 107 case history includes cases at Fort Cavazos resulting in retention of the service member. Review our past case results for examples of cases we have handled. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes; every case depends on its own facts. Before speaking to investigators or law enforcement, assert your Article 31 rights. Understand the court-martial process before your case proceeds. Call (888) 367-9489 now. Available 24/7.
Retain defense counsel before the government concludes its investigation. The investigation phase is where evidence is gathered and witness statements are formed. Defense counsel who enters the case early can shape those proceedings, identify procedural violations, and prevent the government from building a case unopposed.
Contact Jordan at (888) 367-9489. Available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Does Article 107 require that I actually benefited from the false statement?
No. Benefit to the accused is not an element of Article 107. The government must prove the statement was false, that you knew it was false, and that you made it with intent to deceive-regardless of whether you actually gained anything. In practice, benefit is often used as circumstantial evidence of intent, but it is not a required element. Conversely, the absence of financial benefit is relevant to the defense argument against intent.
What if I signed a form but did not personally verify the information in it?
Whether signing a form without verifying its contents constitutes knowledge of falsity depends on the specific circumstances. If you were directed to sign, if the verification was someone else’s responsibility, or if the information was outside your direct knowledge, the knowledge element of Article 107 may not be satisfied. The government must prove you knew the statement was false-not merely that you signed it and it turned out to be wrong.
Can Article 107 charges be brought for a statement made during an ADSEP board?
Yes. Statements made in the course of administrative separation proceedings qualify as official statements for Article 107 purposes. The same elements apply: the statement must be false, the accused must have known it was false at the time, and it must have been made with intent to deceive.
What is the difference between Article 107 and perjury under [Article 131](https://jordanucmjlaw.com/articles-of-the-ucmj/article-131-perjury/)?
Article 131 covers perjury-false statements made under oath in a judicial proceeding. Article 107 is broader: it covers false official statements made with intent to deceive whether or not the statement was made under oath. The overlap occurs when false statements are made in judicial proceedings, but this offense applies to a far wider range of official contexts outside formal judicial proceedings.
Can I be charged under both Article 107 and Article 121 for the same conduct?
Yes. The government frequently charges Article 107 (false statement) alongside Article 121 (larceny) when a service member is accused of fraudulent financial claims. Each charge requires proof of different elements, so both can be charged simultaneously and tried together. Defense strategy must address each charge independently while also managing the overall narrative the government is constructing.
How does a guilty plea to Article 107 affect my record and benefits?
A guilty plea and conviction results in a federal conviction and a punitive discharge if the military judge imposes one. The discharge characterization-dishonorable or bad-conduct-determines most of the downstream consequences for VA benefits, federal employment, and professional licensing. A plea agreement that limits the punitive discharge or eliminates confinement may be possible depending on the facts, but the terms must be carefully evaluated against the strength of the government’s evidence.
What happens to my security clearance if I am charged but not convicted?
Charges alone-without conviction-can trigger a suspension of your security clearance pending the outcome. Even if you are acquitted, the underlying allegations may be used in a subsequent clearance adjudication as a factor bearing on trustworthiness and integrity. An acquittal is the strongest possible outcome for clearance purposes, but it does not ensure automatic reinstatement of the clearance.
If my supervisor told me to file the voucher a certain way, am I still liable under Article 107?
Following a supervisor’s instruction is directly relevant to the intent element. If you filed a document in a particular manner because your supervisor directed you to-and you had no independent reason to believe the direction was unlawful-that fact significantly weakens the government’s ability to prove you acted with intent to deceive. Defense counsel will develop this factual narrative fully if the circumstances support it.
Can the government charge Article 107 for a statement I recanted before an investigation concluded?
A recantation before the investigation is complete is relevant to the government’s case. In some circumstances, a voluntary and complete recantation before the false statement has had any effect may undercut the intent element or affect prosecutorial decisions. The timing, completeness, and circumstances of any recantation all matter. This is a fact-specific analysis that requires legal counsel who can evaluate your specific situation.
This page provides general legal information about UCMJ Article 107 and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. Military law is complex. Outcomes depend on the specific facts of each case, the service branch involved, applicable regulations, and the Manual for Courts-Martial, 2024 edition, in effect at the time of the alleged offense. Executive Order 14103 sentencing parameters apply to offenses committed on or after 27 December 2023. For advice specific to your situation, contact Joseph L. Jordan at (888) 367-9489.
jordanucmjlaw.com | (888) 367-9489 | Serving all branches of the U.S. military worldwide
Joseph L. Jordan is a civilian military defense lawyer serving all six branches of the Armed Forces.
