What You Are Facing: Article 82 Solicitation

The Charge. Article 82 charges you with solicitation by advising, urging, or causing another person to commit a UCMJ offense. The offense is complete the moment you make the request, regardless of whether the other person agrees or acts.

What the Government Must Prove. That you solicited another person to commit a specific offense, that the solicitation was serious, and that you intended for the offense to be committed. Casual conversation, jokes, or hypothetical discussion do not satisfy the elements.

Where the Case Breaks. Context is everything. Defense counsel examines whether the communication was a genuine solicitation or a statement the government has taken out of context.

The intent element requires proof that you genuinely wanted the offense committed.

What Makes This Dangerous. Solicitation of a capital offense carries a maximum of 20 years. Solicitation of other offenses carries the same maximum as the underlying offense. These are serious penalties for words alone.

What to Do Right Now. Do not discuss the alleged communications with anyone. Invoke your Article 31(b) rights. Call (888) 367-9489 for a free consultation.

Elements of Article 82: Solicitation

For Solicitation of Desertion:

1. That the accused solicited or advised a certain person or persons to commit desertion
2. That the accused did so with intent that the offense be actually committed

For Solicitation of Mutiny:

1. That the accused solicited or advised a certain person or persons to commit mutiny
2. That the accused did so with intent that the offense be actually committed

The "solicit or advise" element is broader than many service members expect. A direct command to desert is solicitation. So is advice, encouragement, or inducement-any communication directed at persuading another person to commit the offense.

Solicitation of Other UCMJ Offenses (Article 134)

Solicitation of UCMJ offenses beyond desertion and mutiny is typically charged under Article 134 as a named offense. The elements parallel Article 82: a communication soliciting, advising, counseling, urging, or inducing another person to commit a UCMJ offense, made with the intent that the offense be committed. The maximum punishment for solicitation under Article 134 depends on the underlying offense solicited-but is capped at the maximum for Article 134 (dishonorable discharge, 5 years confinement) when the underlying offense is an Article 134 offense.

Maximum Punishment Under UCMJ Article 82 (MCM 2024)

For other solicited offenses under Article 134 general solicitation principles, the maximum tracks the underlying offense. Congress has not formally declared war since World War II. Defense counsel evaluates the sentencing exposure at every stage of the case and addresses the gap between maximum authorized punishment and likely sentencing outcomes based on the specific facts, the accused's record, and the jurisdiction's sentencing patterns.

Defense Vulnerabilities in Article 82 Prosecutions

Vulnerability 1: The specific intent to have the offense committed is not proven.

Solicitation requires specific intent-the accused must have actually intended that the solicited offense occur. Statements made in frustration, as dark humor, or as expressions of discontent that no reasonable person would take seriously do not satisfy the specific intent element. Defense counsel examines the context of the communication and argues that it reflected frustration rather than genuine intent to have the offense committed.

Vulnerability 2: The communication was protected expression.

Not every statement urging another to commit an offense is actionable solicitation. Expression that is plainly hyperbolic, satirical, or constitutionally protected may not constitute solicitation in the legal sense. Defense counsel evaluates whether the constitutional dimension is viable on the specific facts.

Vulnerability 3: The government's witness evidence is unreliable.

Solicitation cases often rest on the testimony of the person who was allegedly solicited-often a co-worker, subordinate, or fellow service member who has their own reasons to cooperate with the government. Defense counsel cross-examines the witness on inconsistencies, prior statements, and any benefit they received from cooperation.

Vulnerability 4: No act was taken in response to the solicitation.

While Article 82 does not require that the solicited offense was committed, the complete failure of the solicitation to induce any response is relevant to whether the communication was taken seriously as a genuine solicitation and to the sentencing analysis. Defense counsel targets this vulnerability through pretrial motions, cross-examination, and presentation of evidence that directly challenges the government's proof on this element.

Collateral Consequences of an Article 82 Solicitation Conviction

A conviction under this article carries consequences beyond the sentence imposed at court-martial. A dishonorable discharge, if adjudged, eliminates all VA benefits including disability compensation, GI Bill education benefits, VA home loan eligibility, and VA healthcare. It creates a federal firearms prohibition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(6) and serves as a permanent marker on background checks equivalent to a felony conviction for civilian employment purposes.

A federal conviction record must be disclosed on employment applications, security clearance questionnaires, and professional licensing applications. Security clearances are revoked upon conviction, and positions requiring a position of trust become unavailable. Defense counsel addresses collateral consequences at every phase of the case, including pretrial negotiations where alternative dispositions may preserve the service member's post-military opportunities.

Contact Joseph L. Jordan: Article 82 Defense

If you are facing Article 82 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.

Why Joseph L. Jordan for Solicitation Cases

Article 134 and general UCMJ offenses give commanders broad charging authority, which means the government has wide discretion in how it frames the alleged conduct. That discretion creates both risk and opportunity: risk because the charge can be stretched to cover conduct that does not squarely fit the elements, and opportunity because defense counsel can challenge whether the specific conduct actually satisfies each element the government must prove. Jordan has prosecuted and defended these cases and understands how the government builds its evidentiary chain, where that chain is weakest, and what defense strategies produce results at trial and in pretrial negotiations. 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 Hood (Fort Cavazos), Texas and with the 2nd Infantry Division in South Korea.

He has prosecuted and defended cases across the full range of UCMJ offenses and understands how charging decisions are made and where they can be challenged. He practices exclusively in military law and is highly experienced in criminal trial advocacy. Call (888) 367-9489 now. Available 24/7. Joseph L. Jordan has defended service members facing these charges across all military branches. Review our case results 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 Article 31 rights. Understand the full court-martial process before your case proceeds.