ARTICLE 134: FALSE SWEARING

Why Sworn Statements Matter in the UCMJ

A service member who gives a sworn statement they know to be untrue can face charges under Article 134. It’s not about forgetting a detail—it’s about knowingly putting false words into an official record. Unlike Article 131 perjury, which applies during court proceedings, false swearing covers lies made under oath in everyday military processes—counseling packets, affidavits, formal reports. Once you sign something you know isn’t true, and that signature comes after an official oath, you’re no longer just explaining a mistake. You’re facing criminal liability.

What the Government Has to Prove

For a conviction under Article 134, the government has to establish:

1. The accused took a legally authorized oath or affirmation;
2. The person administering it had authority;
3. The statement came after the oath;
4. The statement was false;
5. The accused didn’t believe it to be true;
6. It was material;
7. And the act either harmed good order and discipline or discredited the armed forces.

Intent is everything. A wrong date in a rushed form won’t trigger this charge. But a lie tied to an official process—especially one used to deflect accountability or gain something unfair—will.

False Swearing vs. Perjury: Why the Difference Matters

False swearing doesn’t need a courtroom. That’s perjury’s domain. Article 134 kicks in when the setting is administrative: housing claims, personnel complaints, formal memorandums. If it’s under oath, and knowingly false, it qualifies. The setting isn’t the issue—the signature is. If a document carries the weight of a legal declaration, the truth matters more than the format.

Materiality: Where the Line Gets Drawn

False isn’t always criminal. The falsehood must be material. In other words, it must matter. Misremembering a middle initial? No case. Submitting a sworn denial of misconduct that contradicts evidence? That’s material. Military courts don’t chase errors—they prosecute lies that interfere with function, discipline, or fairness.

Fort Knox, 2005: Where It Happened

In 2005, a company commander at Fort Knox was charged with false swearing after denying knowledge of trainee abuse under his command. Drill instructors had violated policy—shoving, striking, and cursing at new recruits. The commander submitted statements under oath claiming no awareness. The investigation said otherwise. He wasn’t accused of the abuse itself, but his sworn denials were proven false. He was sentenced to six months confinement. The charge didn’t focus on action—it focused on words.

Defense Tactics: Where These Cases Are Fought

Defense begins with the oath itself. Was it legally valid? Was it clearly labeled? Was the accused aware it carried legal weight? Some forms don’t announce themselves clearly, and if the signature wasn’t given knowingly, intent can be challenged. Then there’s the statement: was it objectively false, or misinterpreted? Was it material? Did it affect anyone?

Another angle is motivation. Was the charge used as retaliation? Had the accused filed grievances or blown the whistle on command issues? Unlawful command influence, selective enforcement, or procedural flaws can all be part of the strategy. Defense attorneys know that truth in the military isn’t just about facts—it’s about perception, timing, and paperwork. If that paperwork was mishandled, the case can fall apart.

What You Risk Under Article 134

Maximum penalty: three years in confinement, dishonorable discharge, full forfeitures. That’s the legal end of it. But career damage comes sooner. Being flagged during the investigation pauses promotions, affects access, and may lead to administrative separation even if the charge is dropped. For officers or career enlisted members, a single false swearing charge can collapse everything they’ve built.

Related Offenses That May Be Stacked

Depending on the context, command may charge additional violations alongside false swearing:

– Article 107 – False Official Statement
– Article 92 – Failure to Obey a Lawful Order
– Article 133 – Conduct Unbecoming an Officer

These charges often overlap, and prosecutors may stack them to increase leverage during plea negotiations or NJP.

Call Joseph L. Jordan – UCMJ Attorney

This isn’t just about what you wrote. It’s about what you swore. Joseph L. Jordan, a UCMJ Attorney and former Army Judge Advocate, has represented service members facing false swearing allegations in every branch. He understands the paperwork, the timing, and the internal politics that often surround these cases. If your integrity is being questioned, you need more than answers—you need a defense. Call (888) 367-0312 now.