UCMJ Article 126 – Arson

UCMJ Article 126 criminalizes the act of willfully and maliciously burning or setting fire to property. The article distinguishes between burning property belonging to the United States and property belonging to another person. Arson is treated as a serious offense in the military because fire endangers lives, destroys valuable resources, and can compromise mission readiness.

The offense is broader than simple property damage. It requires proof that the accused intentionally and wrongfully set a fire with malicious purpose, not by accident. Because of the inherent danger of fire, Article 126 authorizes severe punishment, including life imprisonment, for aggravated cases.

Key Elements

To convict under Article 126, the prosecution must prove:

  1. That the accused willfully and maliciously set fire to or burned certain property.
  2. That the property was either military property of the United States or property of another person.
  3. That the burning was wrongful, meaning without lawful authority or excuse.

Scope and Application

Article 126 applies to:

  • Burning barracks, vehicles, aircraft, or other military property.
  • Setting fire to civilian property such as houses or vehicles.
  • Attempting to destroy evidence or cover up misconduct through fire.

The statute distinguishes between military property of the United States, which carries heavier penalties, and private or civilian property. Even if the fire does not cause complete destruction, the offense is complete once property is burned or damaged.

Punishment

  • Arson of U.S. military property: Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for up to life.
  • Arson of other property: Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for up to 20 years.

Defenses

Possible defenses include:

  • Accident: If the fire started unintentionally and without malicious intent.
  • Lack of malice: If the accused did not act with wrongful or deliberate intent.
  • Lawful authority: Fires set as part of authorized training or military necessity.
  • Mistaken identity: If the government cannot prove the accused actually caused the fire.

Examples

If a soldier deliberately burns down barracks to retaliate against command, Article 126 applies with maximum penalties. If a Marine sets fire to a civilian’s car out of anger, it qualifies as arson of other property. If an airman carelessly discards a cigarette and accidentally starts a fire, it may not be arson but could still lead to negligent charges under other articles.

Conclusion

Article 126 punishes willful and malicious acts of arson that threaten life, destroy property, and disrupt military operations. By distinguishing between government and private property, the UCMJ ensures proportional punishment while reinforcing the seriousness of fire-related crimes. Enforcement of Article 126 preserves discipline and protects valuable military and civilian resources.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What makes arson under Article 126 different from property damage under Article 108 or 109?
Arson specifically involves willfully and maliciously setting fire to property, while Articles 108 and 109 cover damage or destruction by other means. The intent and use of fire make arson more dangerous. Because fire often risks human life, punishment for arson is much harsher.

2. Does the fire need to completely destroy the property?
No. Even partial burning or scorching can qualify as arson if it damages the property. The offense is complete once the fire alters the property in a meaningful way. Total destruction is not required. This ensures accountability even for smaller but deliberate acts.

3. What is the maximum punishment for arson of military property?
The maximum is life imprisonment, dishonorable discharge, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. This reflects the seriousness of destroying U.S. government property by fire. The extreme penalty emphasizes how dangerous and destabilizing arson can be in military contexts.

4. Can accidental fires lead to charges under Article 126?
No, accidents without malice do not qualify as arson. However, negligence may result in charges under other provisions. The prosecution must prove willfulness and malicious intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Carelessness is treated differently from deliberate fire-setting.

5. Does Article 126 apply to civilian property?
Yes, it applies to burning or damaging property belonging to civilians or other service members. The punishment is less severe than for military property but still carries up to 20 years of confinement. The military enforces accountability wherever property is harmed.

6. How is malice defined in arson cases?
Malice means intentional wrongdoing without lawful justification. It does not require hatred of the victim but only a deliberate decision to commit the act. Proving malice is central to showing that the fire was not an accident. Courts look closely at circumstances to infer intent.

7. Can lawful training exercises involve setting fires?
Yes, controlled burns or demolition training conducted under orders are lawful and not punishable. The difference is whether the fire served a legitimate military purpose. Fires outside such authority, however, can qualify as arson. Command authorization is the key distinction.

8. Can attempted arson be prosecuted?
Yes, under Article 80 for attempts. Even preparing materials or starting a fire that fails to ignite can result in serious charges. The law punishes attempts to reflect the danger of even unsuccessful efforts. Intent is the defining factor.

9. Does arson require actual danger to life?
Not necessarily. The law focuses on damage to property, but risk to human life increases the seriousness of sentencing. Even without injuries, arson remains a grave offense. The potential consequences make fire a uniquely dangerous weapon.

10. Why is Article 126 important for military justice?
Because arson poses extreme risks to life, mission readiness, and resources. By punishing malicious acts of burning, the UCMJ deters misconduct and protects both government and civilian property. The article ensures discipline and accountability across all environments.

Sources

  • Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 926, Article 126
  • Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 edition)
  • Army Regulation 27-10, Military Justice
  • Navy JAGMAN (Judge Advocate General’s Manual) § 0158
  • Air Force Instruction 51-201, Administration of Military Justice
  • Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, United States v. Caldwell, 72 M.J. 137 (2013)
  • Military Attorney Joseph L. Jordan, Articles of the UCMJ web page

This content is for informational purposes only. If you are facing issues related to Article 126 or any other UCMJ provision, you should consult a qualified military attorney.

Related:

  1. UCMJ Article 102 – Forcing a Safeguard UCMJ Article 102 criminalizes the act of forcing a safeguard. A safeguard is a formal protection or guarantee issued by a commander to protect persons, property, or places from harm by U.S. military forces. Safeguards are often written documents, posted...
  2. UCMJ Article 108 – Damage, Wrongful Disposition, Sale, Loss or Destruction of U.S. Military Property UCMJ Article 108 addresses misconduct involving U.S. military property. The article criminalizes damaging, selling, destroying, misusing, or losing military property, whether through negligence or intentional acts. Because military property belongs to the United States and is essential for readiness, accountability...
  3. UCMJ Article 134 – Sentinel or Lookout: Offenses Against or By This enumerated offense under Article 134 punishes misconduct either committed against a sentinel or lookout on duty, or misconduct by a sentinel or lookout who fails to properly perform their duties. Sentinels and lookouts hold critical positions in military security,...
  4. UCMJ Article 120c – Other Sexual Misconduct UCMJ Article 120c criminalizes forms of sexual misconduct not specifically covered under Articles 120 or 120b. It was created to ensure that acts such as indecent exposure, voyeurism, and indecent visual recording are addressed under military law. This article reflects...
  5. UCMJ Article 107 – Making False Official Statements UCMJ Article 107 punishes service members who knowingly make false official statements or entries, or who sign official documents knowing the information is false. Military justice depends on accuracy and honesty in official matters. Any deliberate falsehood in official documents,...
  6. UCMJ Article 134 – Restriction Breaking Restriction breaking is an enumerated offense under Article 134 that punishes service members who unlawfully break restriction imposed by lawful authority. Restriction is a form of non-judicial punishment, pretrial restraint, or administrative control that limits a service member’s movements to...
  7. UCMJ Article 98 – Noncompliance with Procedural Rules UCMJ Article 98 punishes officials who knowingly or willfully fail to comply with procedural rules in the administration of military justice. It applies to commanders, military judges, convening authorities, trial counsel, and others responsible for courts-martial proceedings. The article is...
  8. UCMJ Article 117 – Provoking Speeches or Gestures UCMJ Article 117 makes it an offense for a service member to use provoking or reproachful words or gestures toward another person subject to the UCMJ. The purpose of this article is to prevent fights, maintain discipline, and preserve harmony...
  9. UCMJ Article 134 – Willful Discharge of Firearm Under Circumstances to Endanger Human Life This enumerated offense under Article 134 punishes service members who willfully discharge a firearm in a manner that endangers or could endanger human life. Unlike negligent discharge (which involves carelessness), this offense requires proof that the accused acted willfully and...
  10. UCMJ Article 134 – Firearm, Discharging Through Negligence This enumerated offense under Article 134 punishes service members who negligently discharge a firearm. The military holds strict standards for the handling of weapons because negligence with firearms endangers lives, undermines discipline, and damages the reputation of the armed forces....
  11. UCMJ Article 134 – Threat Communicating This enumerated offense under Article 134 punishes service members who wrongfully communicate a threat to injure another person, their property, or a third party. Discipline in the armed forces requires trust, respect, and order, and threatening language undermines that foundation....
  12. UCMJ Article 129 – Burglary UCMJ Article 129 criminalizes burglary, which is unlawfully breaking and entering the dwelling house of another in the nighttime with the intent to commit a criminal offense inside. Burglary is considered more serious than unlawful entry because it combines trespass...
  13. UCMJ Article 134 – Seizure: Destruction, Removal, or Disposal of Property to Prevent This enumerated offense under Article 134 punishes service members who destroy, remove, or otherwise dispose of property in order to prevent it from being lawfully seized. The offense is closely tied to maintaining integrity in investigations, inspections, and lawful authority....
  14. UCMJ Article 101 – Improper Use of Countersign UCMJ Article 101 punishes the improper use of countersigns, parole words, or watchwords used in military operations. A countersign is a security measure used by guards and sentries to distinguish friend from foe, especially in combat or high-security environments. Misuse...
  15. UCMJ Article 134 – Kidnapping Kidnapping under Article 134 punishes the unlawful seizing, confining, inveigling, decoying, or carrying away of another person against their will. The offense is extremely serious because it violates personal liberty, threatens safety, and undermines public trust in the armed forces....