The equipment was missing at the next inventory. Or the vehicle was damaged during use. Or a weapon that was signed to you was reported lost. Article 108 of the UCMJ addresses the loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful sale or disposition of military property.
It is one of the most frequently charged property-related offenses in military law-and one that service members often face for circumstances that were accidents or that arose from unit-level practices that no individual fully controlled. Article 108, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 908, covers two distinct theories: through design (intentional conduct), and through neglect (failure to exercise proper care).
The distinction is legally significant because it determines the maximum punishment and reflects completely different factual narratives. An accused charged with disposing of military property through design faces a dishonorable discharge and 10 years of confinement. An accused charged with the same through neglect faces a bad-conduct discharge and 1 year. 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.
Call **(888) 367-9489** now for a free consultation.
The Charge. Article 108 charges you with selling, damaging, destroying, losing, or wrongfully disposing of military property of the United States. The government alleges you were responsible for government property and that it was lost, damaged, or improperly handled through your fault.
What the Government Must Prove. That the property was military property, that you had responsibility for it, and that you willfully or negligently sold, damaged, destroyed, lost, or wrongfully disposed of it. The level of culpability (willful vs. negligent) determines the maximum punishment.
Where the Case Breaks. The distinction between willful and negligent conduct is critical.
Negligent loss carries a lower maximum than willful destruction. Defense counsel examines whether the government can prove intentional misconduct or only negligence, and whether even negligence is established given the operational circumstances.
What Makes This Dangerous. Willful destruction of military property carries up to 10 years confinement and a dishonorable discharge. The value of the property can drive the charge into felony-level territory. Military property cases also trigger heightened command scrutiny.
What to Do Right Now. Invoke your Article 31(b) rights. Call (888) 367-9489 for a free consultation.
For Loss, Damage, or Destruction Through Design:
For Loss, Damage, or Destruction Through Neglect:
Same elements, but the third element is that the loss, damage, or destruction was through neglect.
Defense counsel forces the government to prove whether the loss was through design or through neglect, because overcharging design when the evidence only supports neglect exposes a critical proof gap that can reduce the maximum punishment from ten years to one.
Military property includes weapons, vehicles, equipment, uniforms, and other government-issued items. It does not include all government property-the property must be military property. Personal equipment purchased by the service member that is not government-issued property is not military property for Article 108 purposes.
Design requires intentional conduct-the accused deliberately sold, disposed of, or caused the loss or damage of the property. Selling equipment for cash, deliberately destroying property, or intentionally losing it satisfies the design element. Neglect requires a failure to exercise the care a reasonably careful person would exercise over the property in similar circumstances. Loss during a training exercise without reasonable safeguards, damage through careless handling, or other inattentive conduct may satisfy neglect.
| Theory | Discharge | Confinement |
| Through design (over $1,000 value) | Dishonorable | 10 years |
| Through neglect (over $1,000 value) | Bad-conduct | 1 year |
| Under $1,000 value | No discharge (or lesser) | 6 months |
The value of the property lost, damaged, or destroyed affects the maximum punishment. Defense counsel examines the government’s valuation of the property and challenges any overstatement of value.
Vulnerability 1: The loss was not through the accused’s design or neglect.
Military property is lost or damaged for many reasons that have nothing to do with individual negligence. Equipment failures, theft by others, operational damage in authorized training, and damage during legitimate use may not satisfy the neglect standard. Defense counsel establishes what actually happened to the property and whether the accused’s conduct was within the range of reasonable care.
Vulnerability 2: The accused was not the responsible custodian.
Military property accountability is a complex system of hand receipts and subhand receipts. The person who signed for property may not have been the person who lost or damaged it. Defense counsel examines the accountability chain and identifies whether the accused was actually the responsible party for the specific property at issue.
Vulnerability 3: The property’s value is overstated.
The maximum punishment depends on the property’s value. The government often uses full replacement cost to establish value, which may not reflect the property’s actual condition and depreciated value at the time of loss. Defense counsel challenges the government’s valuation methodology.
Vulnerability 4: The government charged design when only neglect applies.
When the evidence shows the loss was due to inattention or failure to exercise proper care-not intentional misconduct-the design theory is not supported. Defense counsel forces the government to the correct theory and appropriate sentencing ceiling.
A conviction under this article carries consequences beyond the sentence imposed at court-martial. A bad-conduct discharge eliminates most VA benefits including GI Bill education benefits and VA home loan eligibility. A federal conviction record appears on all background checks and must be disclosed on employment applications, security clearance questionnaires, and professional licensing applications. Security clearances are typically revoked upon conviction, limiting post-military career options in cleared positions. Defense counsel evaluates collateral consequences as part of the overall case strategy, including whether alternative dispositions such as nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 may achieve a resolution that avoids a federal criminal conviction.
If you are facing Article 108 charges, the decisions you make now determine the shape of your entire defense. Evidence is preserved or lost in the first days. Witness accounts solidify. Command dynamics shift.
Call (888) 367-9489 now for a free consultation. Available 24/7.
Financial and property offenses in the military are built on paper trails, digital records, and circumstantial evidence of intent. The government constructs these cases through audit records, transaction histories, and witness testimony about the accused’s knowledge and purpose. Defense counsel must challenge both the documentary evidence and the inferences the government draws from it. Mr. Jordan has prosecuted financial and property cases and understands how the government constructs intent from paper trails, transaction records, and circumstantial evidence. Joseph L. Jordan is a former Army JAG Officer who served as a prosecutor, including as a former military prosecutor at Fort Cavazos, Texas and with the 2nd Infantry Division in South Korea.
Mr. Jordan has tried 250+ cases to verdict representing more than 1,000 service members in Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and Space Force at installations across the United States, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. He gets on a plane.
He has prosecuted and defended financial and property cases and understands the evidentiary frameworks the government uses to establish intent, knowledge, and wrongfulness. He practices exclusively in military law and is highly experienced in criminal trial advocacy. Call (888) 367-9489 now. Available 24/7. Joseph Jordan has defended service members facing these charges across all military branches. His Article 108 results include a NOT GUILTY verdict on Article 92, 108, and 121 charges for an Air Force TSgt, an Article 15 turndown won at trial. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Review our cases we have handled 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 military right to counsel. Understand the full the court-martial system before your case proceeds.
Can I be charged under Article 108 for property that was lost while on authorized training?
Yes, but the analysis focuses on whether the loss resulted from neglect-a failure to exercise proper care-or from circumstances beyond the accused’s reasonable control. Property lost during authorized training through unavoidable operational circumstances may not satisfy the neglect element. Defense counsel examines the specific circumstances of the loss.
Is Article 108 charged alongside [larceny charges under Article 121](https://jordanucmjlaw.com/military-crimes/larceny/) larceny?
Yes. When the government believes property was intentionally taken or wrongfully disposed of for personal benefit, Article 121 larceny is often charged alongside or in lieu of Article 108. The elements differ: larceny requires intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property, while Article 108 covers a broader range of loss, damage, and unauthorized disposition.
Does the government need to find the missing property to charge Article 108?
No. The offense is complete upon the loss, damage, or unauthorized disposition-the government does not need to recover the property to sustain the charge. However, the inability to produce the property or establish what happened to it may affect the government’s ability to prove the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
What counts as “military property” under Article 108?
Military property includes all property owned by, issued by, or in the custody of the United States military. This includes weapons, vehicles, equipment, supplies, uniforms, and any other government-issued items. Property issued to the accused for personal use (such as uniforms and equipment) is still military property for Article 108 purposes.
Can losing military property be charged under Article 108?
Yes. Article 108 covers not only willful damage or destruction but also loss of military property through neglect. The government must prove that the loss resulted from the accused’s culpable negligence rather than circumstances beyond the accused’s control. Defense counsel examines whether the loss was due to negligence or to unavoidable circumstances.
This page provides general legal information about Article 108, UCMJ. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts. If you are facing charges under Article 108, contact a qualified military defense attorney. Call (888) 367-9489 for a free and confidential consultation.
jordanucmjlaw.com | (888) 367-9489 | Serving all branches of the U.S. military worldwide
Joseph L. Jordan is a military defense firm serving all six branches of the Armed Forces.
