ARTICLE 134: FALSE OR UNAUTHORIZED PASS OFFENSES

Misusing Military Leave: When a Simple Pass Becomes a Criminal Charge

In the military, a pass isn’t just a piece of paper—it’s an operational tool. It tells the chain of command where you’re supposed to be, when, and under what authority. When someone fakes that system—whether by altering, forging, or misusing a pass—they’re not just breaking a rule. Under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), they may be committing a federal offense. This charge applies when a service member knowingly uses a false or unauthorized pass in a way that prejudices good order and discipline or brings discredit upon the armed forces. The crime isn’t about where you went—it’s about what your choice says about your reliability in a system where discipline is everything.

The Legal Elements the Government Must Prove

There are two primary elements to this charge. First, that the accused knowingly used, created, or altered a pass without proper authorization. Second, that this conduct had a negative impact on military order or reputation. The Manual for Courts-Martial doesn’t require that the accused physically left the base—only that the fraudulent pass existed and was tied to misconduct. The standard is not just technical violation, but harm to trust. Did the pass allow someone to skip a formation? Avoid duty? Miss a deployment movement? Even a few hours unaccounted for can trigger scrutiny. Commanders may use logbooks, accountability reports, surveillance footage, and timestamps to piece together movements. Digital forgery tools, copied signatures, or fake routing slips become central to the case.

Why These Cases Are Treated So Seriously

It might seem minor—especially compared to violent or high-profile charges—but false pass offenses strike at the integrity of the military system. They're often seen as gateway misconduct: the kind of offense that reveals deeper problems with judgment, accountability, or honesty. When someone uses a fake pass to avoid a night shift, what else are they willing to fake? If they skip a duty brief today, can they be trusted on a security rotation tomorrow? That’s how command thinks. And that’s why these charges frequently come with more weight than expected. In many units, especially high-readiness or overseas billets, even small administrative deceit is treated as grounds for administrative separation or command referral to court-martial.

Not a Hypothetical: Real Examples From Actual Commands

While specific identities remain confidential, documented cases exist. In one instance, a junior Marine stationed in Okinawa copied a signed pass template from a fellow lance corporal and edited it to insert his own name and leave dates. He used it to exit base security during a local festival weekend. The pass was logged by gate security but flagged later when his name didn’t match the approved roster. Upon review, the command discovered the forgery and charged him under Article 134. He received a reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay, and an involuntary separation recommendation. In another case, a soldier modified a scanned copy of a pass after having been denied leave. He never left the installation, but the act of knowingly creating and possessing the forged document was enough for command to issue an Article 15. These aren’t rare. They don’t make headlines—but they end careers quietly, in paperwork.

Penalties and Administrative Fallout

Punishment depends on context. If the pass was used to avoid duty, deception is considered deliberate and more serious. If it’s a one-time mistake with no harm caused, the chain of command might issue a counseling or local reprimand. But in aggravated cases, penalties can include confinement, reduction to E-1, forfeiture of pay, and a bad-conduct discharge. Beyond judicial punishment, most service members face flagging, denial of reenlistment, removal from special duties, or loss of clearance. Many are referred for administrative separation under Chapter 14 (pattern of misconduct). Command also evaluates whether the offense reveals a broader reliability concern, particularly in jobs involving access to secure information, weapons, or international movement.

Common Misconceptions About This Charge

Some believe if they never used the pass, they can’t be punished. Not true. Possession of a knowingly false or altered pass can be charged even if it was never presented. Others think that because passes are sometimes issued informally—via text, email, or verbal approval—mistakes won’t count. That’s dangerous. A service member who fails to clarify authorization or creates their own document without verification can still face disciplinary action. The system assumes you know the process, and ignorance is rarely a defense. Even if no one was hurt, and nothing happened, the act alone can be enough to trigger legal consequences.

Defending a False Pass Allegation: What Actually Works

Every defense begins with the facts—who issued the pass, what form it took, and how it was used. Some cases involve genuine miscommunication. For instance, a shift supervisor verbally approving a day off but not recording it. Or a clerical error in the battalion leave tracker that causes conflict with gate records. A good defense team will pursue witness statements, dig into digital audit trails, and verify timeline gaps. Another angle involves command intent. Was this charge pursued fairly, or did it follow an unrelated grievance, a denied award, or interpersonal conflict? In some cases, a pattern of targeting or command pressure can shift the lens from misconduct to command influence. Even when the document is technically invalid, context can save the case: was the accused new to the unit? Was the process inconsistently applied? Those details matter.

Related Offenses and How They Stack Up

False pass charges don’t live alone. They often sit next to other Article 134 offenses. For example:

• Article 86 – Absence Without Leave, if the pass allowed someone to skip required duty.
• Article 107 – False Official Statements, if the pass was submitted with intentionally misleading information.
• Article 132 – Fraud Against the United States, in cases involving travel reimbursements or entitlements linked to forged leave.

These stackable charges are what often make a false pass offense more than “just a piece of paper.” It becomes about integrity, credibility, and whether the command trusts you in uniform.

Call Joseph L. Jordan – UCMJ Attorney

If you’re facing allegations for using or creating a false pass, this isn’t the time for silence. It may seem like a small charge—but in the military, perception and precedent carry weight. Joseph L. Jordan, an experienced UCMJ Attorney, understands how fast these allegations escalate and what it takes to stop them before they define your record. With a background as a former Army Judge Advocate, he’s defended hundreds of service members across the globe. Call (888) 367-0312 today to schedule a confidential case review and take back control of your career.