Paragraph 96 of the Manual for Court Martial deals with obstructing justice. Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, known as the General Article, provides that all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, may be punished as a court-martial may direct.
This provision forbids service members from interfering with the administration of military justice at any stage, including investigations, preferral of charges, Article 32 hearings, and court-martial proceedings. It applies not only during judicial proceedings awaiting decisions. Obstruction of justice also includes hindering criminal proceedings and investigations in foreign lands.
The offense (obstruction of justice) can be based on an act of the accused before the “preferral” of charges. If a suspected crime is discovered and, after investigations have been completed, the proper authorities may direct the preferral or filing of charges against the accused. It can be compared to civilian indictments. Criminal proceedings also include non-judicial punishments.
Examples for obstructing justice are wrongfully influencing, impeding, injuring, or intimidating a witness who is acting on charges against an individual, or an officer who is investigating an act of the individual, or any party. It also includes preventing or delaying the transfer of information concerning a violation of a criminal statute to a person who is authorized by an agency, armed force, or a department, by resorting to bribery, misrepresentation, intimidation, or force or a threat to use force.
The maximum punishment that can be levied on a service member who is held guilty of obstructing justice is a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of allowances and pay, and 5 years of confinement.
For example, in United States v. Stombaugh, obstruction of justice charges were considered when members pressured a witness not to testify in a military case. Acts such as instructing others to lie to investigators or attempting to conceal misconduct have also been prosecuted under Article 134.
If a service member pressurizes another service member, who is also a witness in a case, not to testify before a military court, it can amount to obstructing justice. The accused can be charged with the offense. This happened in United States v. Stombaugh, where an officer testified that certain members affiliated with the Junior Officers Protection Association were putting pressure on him not to testify in the case.
Obstruction of justice is a violation defined in the Manual for Courts-Martial, Part IV, paragraph 96. It occurs when a service member wrongfully takes action with the intent to impede, influence, or obstruct the administration of military justice, including investigations or proceedings.
Article 134, known as the General Article, allows misconduct that harms good order and discipline or discredits the armed forces to be punished by court-martial. Obstruction of justice is one of the specific offenses prosecuted under Article 134 through the Manual for Courts-Martial.
To convict under Article 134 for obstruction of justice, the prosecution must prove:
Examples include:
No. The offense covers acts that interfere with the administration of justice at any stage, including investigations before charges are filed, Article 32 hearings, or non-judicial punishment actions.
Yes. If the conduct takes place abroad but interferes with a UCMJ investigation or proceeding, it can qualify as obstruction of justice. The critical issue is its impact on the military justice process, not the geographic location.
The maximum punishment is:
False official statement (Article 107) punishes knowingly false statements to military authorities. Obstruction of justice focuses on intent to impede or influence justice, which can include false statements but also covers threats, coercion, or interference with witnesses.
Yes. Possible defenses include:
The offense directly undermines the integrity of the military justice system. Interfering with investigations, witnesses, or proceedings damages good order, discipline, and public confidence in the armed forces, making it a serious violation under Article 134.
