Article 82 of the UCMJ makes it a crime to encourage or advise another service member to commit a military offense, and the crime is complete the moment you make the request, whether or not the other person agrees, tries, or succeeds.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 882 – Art. 82. Soliciting Commission of Offenses The statute has two tiers, and the tier that applies to your case controls almost everything about your exposure.
The Two Tiers of Solicitation
Subsection (a) covers soliciting any UCMJ offense other than the four most serious military-specific crimes. Punishment is set by the Manual for Courts-Martial and scales with the seriousness of the offense you asked someone else to commit.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 882 – Art. 82. Soliciting Commission of Offenses
Subsection (b) is reserved for four offenses: desertion (Article 85), mutiny or sedition (Article 94), and misbehavior before the enemy (Article 99). Under this tier, if the person you solicited attempts or commits the crime, you face the same maximum punishment as if you had done it yourself. Desertion during wartime and mutiny both carry a maximum penalty of death. Misbehavior before the enemy can carry life confinement. If the solicited crime never happens, the court-martial still sets punishment within MCM limits.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 882 – Art. 82. Soliciting Commission of Offenses
What the Government Has to Prove
Two elements, both beyond a reasonable doubt. First, you communicated a genuine request, encouragement, or advice that a specific person commit a specific UCMJ offense. The communication can be spoken, written, electronic, or relayed through a third party. Second, the offense you solicited is actually punishable under the UCMJ. For a subsection (b) charge, the government must also show the solicited offense was one of the four named crimes.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 882 – Art. 82. Soliciting Commission of Offenses
What the government does not have to prove is that anything happened afterward. The other person can refuse, report you on the spot, or never even receive the message. The offense is finished at the moment of the ask.
Serious Intent, Not Venting
Article 82 is a specific-intent crime. Prosecutors have to show you actually wanted the person to carry out the offense. The Manual for Courts-Martial requires that the communication be “of a nature that could reasonably be construed as a serious request or advice” to commit the crime.2Joint Service Committee on Military Justice. UCMJ Part IV – Punitive Articles Sarcasm, hypotheticals, and complaints about the chain of command don’t qualify. Context does most of the work here: the relationship between the parties, the tone, what was said before and after, and whether any concrete steps followed.
Penalties You’re Facing
- Subsection (b), and the person attempted or committed the crime: the same maximum as the underlying offense. That includes death for wartime desertion or mutiny, and up to life for misbehavior before the enemy.
- Subsection (b), and nothing happened: punishment set by the court-martial within MCM limits.
- Subsection (a), any other solicited offense: punishment set by the court-martial within MCM limits, scaled to the underlying crime.
A general court-martial can also impose a dishonorable discharge (or dismissal for officers), total forfeiture of pay and allowances, and reduction to E-1. These follow you long after any confinement ends.
Effect on VA Benefits
A discharge by sentence of a general court-martial triggers a statutory bar on VA benefits. No disability compensation, no GI Bill, no VA home loan guaranty, no VA healthcare.3eCFR. 38 CFR 3.12 – Benefit Eligibility Based on Character of Discharge A Discharge Review Board or Board for Correction of Military/Naval Records upgrade is possible in theory, and narrow exceptions exist for combat-related disabilities, but most veterans in this posture never qualify.
Defenses That Actually Work
The strongest defenses attack intent. If the communication was a joke, a hypothetical, or frustration voiced out loud, there was no solicitation. Defense counsel will build that argument from tone, relationship, whether any concrete plan was discussed, and whether the accused took any preparatory action.
The second angle challenges whether the words rose to a “serious request or advice.” A vague gripe about a superior is not a plan to harm one, and the space between those is where most contested Article 82 cases are decided.
Two things that don’t work: withdrawal and impossibility. Once the communication is made with the required intent, the offense is complete. Telling the person to forget it, or self-reporting, may matter at sentencing but doesn’t erase the charge. And it doesn’t matter if the underlying crime was impossible to carry out. Article 82 punishes the ask, not the result.
When a Different Article Applies Instead
Solicitation can’t be prosecuted under Article 134, the general article, because the preemption doctrine bars using Article 134 for conduct already covered by Articles 80 through 132. One exception cuts the other way: some UCMJ offenses have solicitation built into their own elements, such as pandering and obstructing justice. Where the act of solicitation is itself the standalone offense in a specific article, the government should charge under that article, not Article 82.2Joint Service Committee on Military Justice. UCMJ Part IV – Punitive Articles The elements and maximum punishments differ, so which article the charge lives under changes the defense.