UCMJ Article 134 – Wrongful Cohabitation: Modern Defense for a Dated Accusation

What Is Considered Wrongful Cohabitation Under Article 134?

In the eyes of the military, perception often carries as much weight as reality. Article 134 of the UCMJ penalizes service members for conduct that undermines discipline or brings discredit to the armed forces—even if the act in question isn’t criminal in a civilian sense. Wrongful cohabitation is one of the more controversial examples. It refers to an enlisted member publicly living with another person as if they were married, when in fact, they are not. While the rest of society may have moved past judging unmarried couples living together, the military continues to enforce this article on the grounds that it may damage unit cohesion, mislead the chain of command, or imply false legal claims.

Elements Prosecutors Must Prove to Convict

To secure a conviction, the government must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
– That the accused openly and publicly lived with another person as husband and wife;
– That the person was not legally married to the accused;
– That this conduct either harmed good order and discipline, or brought discredit to the service.

Unlike adultery under Article 134 Paragraph 62, prosecutors do not have to prove sexual activity. Nor do they need to show that the relationship was intimate—only that the two acted in a way that gave the impression of lawful marriage.

Why the Military Still Enforces This Charge

You may wonder why, in 2024, wrongful cohabitation is even still a prosecutable offense. The answer lies in the military’s deep-rooted emphasis on appearance, decorum, and command authority. When a Soldier or Marine introduces a live-in partner on base housing or appears at official events presenting someone as a spouse, it affects records, benefits, and reputational standing. Even if the relationship is harmless, it can mislead superiors or raise concerns about misuse of entitlements.

Additionally, issues arise when one party is a subordinate, which raises potential UCMJ issues involving fraternization, favoritism, or misuse of command influence. For these reasons, cohabitation becomes a gateway charge—a way to enforce broader standards through narrowly written regulations.

Case Study: Fort Benning, 2019 – A Quiet Relationship, A Loud Repercussion

In a well-documented case, a Specialist living in on-base housing with a civilian partner was reported after neighbors heard her referring to him as “my husband.” Despite having no disciplinary issues and living peacefully, command received the report, initiated an inquiry, and ultimately charged the service member with wrongful cohabitation. The couple had been together for three years but were not legally married. The accused faced an Article 15 but opted for court-martial. While the court sentenced him to just 30 days restriction and a formal reprimand, the conviction derailed his pending promotion and blocked his re-enlistment application.

Same-Sex Relationships and Article 134

Historically, Article 134 wrongful cohabitation did not apply to same-sex relationships because the military did not recognize them as marriages. That changed after Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which federally recognized same-sex marriages. The Department of Defense followed suit. Today, cohabitation charges can apply to all partnerships regardless of gender, provided the criteria are met. However, enforcement still tends to be uneven—creating room for selective prosecution defenses.

Potential Punishment for Wrongful Cohabitation

According to the Manual for Courts-Martial, the maximum punishment includes:
– Confinement for 4 months
– Forfeiture of two-thirds pay for 4 months
While this may not sound catastrophic, the collateral effects can be far more damaging:
– General or Other-Than-Honorable Discharge
– Barred from re-enlistment
– Flagged promotion file
– Denial of VA benefits
– Long-term damage to career trajectory and professional reputation

In short, the conviction will not simply end your relationship—it may end your career.

When and Why This Charge Happens

Most wrongful cohabitation cases are triggered by one of the following:
– Living with a partner on military-provided housing without marriage documentation
– Referring to a non-spouse partner as “husband” or “wife” in official channels
– Applying for benefits or access based on a claimed marital status that isn’t legally verified
– Behavioral complaints or third-party reporting (neighbors, chain of command)

It’s also not uncommon for this charge to be tacked onto larger UCMJ actions, such as fraternization or financial misconduct, as a supporting narrative to show disregard for military regulations.

How a Military Defense Attorney Fights Back

Joseph L. Jordan, a UCMJ attorney and former Army Judge Advocate, challenges wrongful cohabitation charges by focusing on context and legality:
– Was the relationship truly public?
– Was any false information willfully provided?
– Was housing assigned through error rather than deception?
– Did command approve the arrangement (even tacitly)?
– Was the relationship cited only as pretext for larger retaliation or command bias?

A strong defense reframes the narrative—from “misconduct” to “misunderstanding,” from “intentional deceit” to “administrative oversight.” In many cases, Article 134 charges can be dismissed, reduced to counseling, or addressed through NJP rather than court-martial.

What You Risk by Staying Passive

A wrongful cohabitation charge can quickly snowball into far bigger issues—especially if it’s linked to other behavior. Left undefended, it could lead to a discharge characterization that follows you into civilian life, damages your security clearance, and permanently restricts your access to military benefits. In some commands, it may even be used as a warning to others—not because of what you did, but because of what your case is made to represent.

Call Joseph L. Jordan – Fight for Your Record Before They Rewrite It

This isn’t just about your relationship—it’s about your future. Article 134 charges, especially wrongful cohabitation, can feel personal, outdated, and unnecessary. But they are enforced. And the moment your command initiates investigation, the clock starts ticking on your defense.
Call 888-694-7306 today and speak directly with Joseph L. Jordan, UCMJ defense attorney and former Army JAG. He’s fought and won cases like this across every branch. Don’t let outdated rules write your last chapter. Fight back with someone who knows how the system works—and how to push it back.