UCMJ Article 106a: Wearing Unauthorized Insignia, Decoration, or Badge

Military awards and qualification badges carry meaning precisely because they are earned. A service member who wears a decoration, badge, or other device he or she is not authorized to wear takes recognition that belongs to others and undermines confidence in the awards system. Article 106a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice punishes a service member who is not authorized to wear an insignia, decoration, badge, ribbon, device, or lapel button and who knowingly and wrongfully wears it on a uniform or civilian clothing. The statute leaves the punishment to be set by court-martial.

This offense was formerly charged as an enumerated offense under the general article, Article 134. The Military Justice Act of 2016, effective January 1, 2019, created the standalone provision and assigned it the number 106a, placing it alongside the impersonation offense of Article 106.

The numbered elements

The government must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

  1. That the accused wore a certain insignia, decoration, badge, ribbon, device, or lapel button upon the accused’s uniform or civilian clothing.
  2. That the accused was not authorized to wear the item.
  3. That the accused knew the accused was not authorized to wear it.
  4. That the wearing was wrongful.

The knowledge element is significant. The offense reaches a knowing and wrongful wear, so an honest and reasonable belief that the wear was authorized is inconsistent with guilt.

What the government must prove

The prosecution must identify the specific item worn, establish that the accused was not authorized to wear it, and prove that the accused knew of the lack of authorization. It must also prove that the wearing was wrongful, meaning without justification or excuse. The offense can reach wearing a valor or service medal that was never awarded, wearing a qualification or skill badge such as a parachutist or special-operations badge without earning it, displaying campaign or service ribbons not authorized, or wearing foreign decorations without the required approval. Because the wear must be knowing and wrongful, an inadvertent placement or an honest mistake about authorization is treated differently from a deliberate misrepresentation.

Maximum punishment

The maximum punishment for a standard violation of Article 106a is a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for six months. The maximum increases where the item involved is among the most significant decorations. If the accused wrongfully wore the Medal of Honor, a service cross, the Silver Star, the Purple Heart, or a valor device on a personal decoration, the maximum punishment is a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for one year. For offenses committed on or after December 27, 2023, the military judge determines the sentence under the segmented sentencing framework adopted in that reform.

Defenses

Authorization is a complete answer: if the item was lawfully awarded or the accused was entitled to wear it, there is no offense. A reasonable mistake of fact about authorization, such as reliance on erroneous paperwork indicating that an award had been approved, can negate the knowledge element. Accident, where the wear occurred inadvertently rather than knowingly, is also inconsistent with the required mental state. Because the offense requires a knowing and wrongful wear, a minor uniform error made in good faith is generally not criminal.

Distinctions from related offenses and federal Stolen Valor

Article 106a is distinct from the federal Stolen Valor Act, which is a civilian criminal statute codified in Title 18 of the United States Code. The federal statute reaches anyone, including civilians and veterans, who fraudulently claims to have received certain decorations with the intent to obtain money, property, or another tangible benefit. Article 106a, by contrast, applies to persons subject to the UCMJ and punishes the knowing and wrongful wear itself, enforced through the military justice system, without requiring proof of an intent to obtain a tangible benefit. The two can address overlapping conduct but rest on different elements and different jurisdictions. Article 106a is also distinct from impersonation under Article 106, which punishes falsely assuming the identity or role of an officer, noncommissioned officer, agent, or official, rather than the wear of an unauthorized device.

Frequently asked questions

What does the government have to prove? That the accused wore a specific insignia, decoration, badge, ribbon, device, or lapel button without authorization, knew it was unauthorized, and that the wear was wrongful.

Does the offense require intent to obtain a benefit? No. Unlike the federal Stolen Valor Act, Article 106a punishes the knowing and wrongful wear itself and does not require proof of an intent to obtain money, property, or another tangible benefit.

Does it apply to foreign decorations? Yes. Wearing foreign awards requires approval through official channels, and wearing them without authorization can be charged.

What is the maximum punishment? A standard violation carries up to a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and six months of confinement. Wrongful wear of the most significant decorations, such as the Medal of Honor, a service cross, the Silver Star, the Purple Heart, or a valor device, carries up to one year of confinement.

Is an honest mistake a defense? A reasonable mistake of fact about authorization can negate the knowledge element, because the offense requires a knowing and wrongful wear.

Sources

10 U.S.C. § 906a (Article 106a, Wearing unauthorized insignia, decoration, badge, ribbon, device, or lapel button): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/906a

Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, Part IV (Punitive Articles, Article 106a): https://jsc.defense.gov/Military-Law/Current-Publications-and-Updates/

Stolen Valor Act, 18 U.S.C. § 704: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/704

Military Attorney Joseph L. Jordan, Articles of the UCMJ

This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It describes military law and procedure of public record, does not address any individual case, and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Related:

  1. UCMJ Article 109a: Mail Matter: Wrongful Taking or Opening For deployed service members and their families, the mail is often a lifeline. A unit mailroom may hold birthday packages, official correspondence, prescription medications, and letters that carry real weight......
  2. UCMJ Article 129: Burglary For most of its history, burglary in military law carried the old common-law trappings: it had to involve a dwelling house, and it had to happen at night. That is......
  3. UCMJ Article 87b: Breach of Restriction Restriction is one of the milder forms of military restraint. It does not put a service member behind a locked door; it confines movement to defined limits, such as a......
  4. UCMJ Article 105: Forgery Military operations run on paper and its electronic equivalents: leave forms, pay vouchers, contracts, orders, identification cards. When someone falsifies a signature or alters a document so it appears to......
  5. UCMJ Article 131c: Misprision of a Serious Offense A service member who learns that someone has committed a serious crime, and then takes steps to hide it, can be prosecuted under Article 131c of the Uniform Code of......
  6. UCMJ Article 103: Spies Among the offenses in military law, few carry the gravity of spying in wartime. A person who infiltrates a military area under false colors to gather intelligence for an enemy......
  7. UCMJ Article 123a: Making, Drawing, or Uttering a Check Without Sufficient Funds A bounced check is usually a banking problem. It becomes a criminal one when the person who wrote it knew the account could not cover it and used it to......
  8. UCMJ Article 89: Disrespect Toward or Assault of a Superior Commissioned Officer The relationship between a service member and a superior commissioned officer rests on a baseline of respect and physical safety. Article 89 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice protects......
  9. UCMJ Article 114: Willful Discharge of a Firearm Endangering Human Life A round fired into the air at a barracks party, a weapon deliberately touched off near occupied housing, a shot sent toward a vehicle that someone might be sitting in:......
  10. UCMJ Article 134: Straggling A unit moves only as fast as its slowest member, and accountability during movement is a basic measure of discipline. A service member who, without authority, lags behind, wanders off,......
  11. UCMJ Article 129: Unlawful Entry Walking into another unit's barracks without permission, slipping into a restricted storage area to look around, or entering a building with no authority and no invitation can expose a service......
  12. UCMJ Article 134: Pandering and Prostitution Pandering and prostitution are prosecuted in the military as enumerated offenses under Article 134, the general article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The provision reaches a service member......
  13. UCMJ Article 87: Missing Movement When a ship, an aircraft, or a unit is scheduled to move, every member required to be aboard or present is part of the plan, and a single absence can......
  14. UCMJ Article 100: Subordinate Compelling Surrender Few offenses in military law sit closer to the heart of combat discipline than the wrongful surrender of forces or property to an enemy. Article 100 of the Uniform Code......
  15. UCMJ Article 118: Murder Murder is the most serious offense in the military justice system, and it is one of the few that can expose a service member to the death penalty. Article 118......