UCMJ Article 131b: Obstructing Justice

The military justice system depends on investigations and proceedings that can find the truth without interference. When a service member tampers with that process, by destroying evidence, pressuring a witness, or otherwise trying to derail an investigation, the conduct can be prosecuted under Article 131b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The offense protects the integrity of the process itself, and it can be charged even when the underlying case is minor or never results in a conviction.

Article 131b received its own statute when the Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019. Before that, obstructing justice was charged as an enumerated offense under the general article, Article 134. The move to 10 U.S.C. 931b fixed its article number and eliminated the need to prove the general article’s terminal element. The offense now turns on the accused’s conduct, the proximity of proceedings, and the accused’s intent.

What the offense is

The statute reaches any person subject to the UCMJ who, in the case of a certain person against whom the accused had reason to believe there were or would be criminal or disciplinary proceedings pending, engages in conduct with intent to influence, impede, or otherwise obstruct the due administration of justice. Two features stand out: the proceedings need only be pending or imminent, and the offense requires a specific intent to obstruct.

Elements the government must prove

To convict, the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt:

  1. That the accused had reason to believe there were or would be criminal or disciplinary proceedings pending against a certain person.
  2. That the accused wrongfully did a certain act.
  3. That the accused did so with the intent to influence, impede, or otherwise obstruct the due administration of justice.

The phrase “were or would be” is significant. The proceedings do not have to be formally underway. It is enough that the accused had reason to believe proceedings were pending or imminent. Because the gravamen is the intent to obstruct, actual obstruction of justice is not required; the wrongful act done with the prohibited intent completes the offense.

What the government must show in practice

The government typically proves that the accused knew or had reason to believe proceedings were pending or about to begin against a particular person. It then identifies a wrongful act, such as destroying or concealing evidence, threatening or bribing a witness, inducing false testimony, or otherwise interfering with investigators, and connects that act to the intent to obstruct. The offense may be based on conduct that occurred before charges were ever referred, which is why the “would be pending” language matters.

Maximum punishment

Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, the maximum punishment for a violation of Article 131b is a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for five years. For offenses committed on or after December 27, 2023, the sentence is adjudged under the revised sentencing-parameter framework, while the authorized confinement ceiling for this offense remains five years.

Defenses

Defenses commonly raised under Article 131b include:

  • No intent to obstruct. If the accused did not act with the purpose of impeding the administration of justice, the central element fails.
  • No reason to believe proceedings were pending or imminent. If proceedings were neither underway nor reasonably anticipated, the first element is not met.
  • Lawful authority. Acts within the accused’s duties or under proper orders, such as advising a subordinate of rights, are not obstruction.
  • Mistake of fact. A reasonable, honest belief that the conduct was lawful can negate the required intent.

Distinctions from related offenses

Article 131b is closely related to but distinct from several other provisions. Wrongful interference with an adverse administrative proceeding under Article 131g covers administrative boards and inquiries rather than criminal or disciplinary cases. False official statements under Article 107 punish lying in official matters generally, while obstruction targets conduct intended to impede the process; lying to investigators to cover up a crime can implicate both. Retaliation under Article 132 reaches adverse actions against those who report wrongdoing. The same scheme of conduct can sometimes support more than one of these charges because each protects a different interest.

Frequently asked questions

Do the proceedings have to already be underway?
No. The statute reaches conduct where the accused had reason to believe proceedings were pending or would be pending. Obstruction can be charged based on acts taken before charges are formally referred, so long as the accused anticipated proceedings.

Does the obstruction have to succeed?
No. Actual obstruction is not an element. The offense is complete when the accused does a wrongful act with intent to influence, impede, or obstruct the administration of justice, even if the attempt fails.

What kinds of acts qualify?
Destroying or concealing evidence, threatening, bribing, or influencing a witness, inducing false testimony, and interfering with investigators are typical examples. The common thread is intent to impede the process.

What is the maximum punishment?
A dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for five years.

Can obstruction be charged alongside the underlying offense?
Yes. Obstruction attacks the justice system itself, so it is treated as a separate violation and can be charged in addition to an underlying offense such as larceny or assault.

Sources

  • 10 U.S.C. 931b, Article 131b, Obstructing justice: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/931b
  • Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 edition), Part IV: https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/2024%20MCM%20files/MCM%20(2024%20ed)%20(20240102)%20(adjusted%20bookmarks).pdf
  • United States v. Jenkins, 48 M.J. 594 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 1998): https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/
  • 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 107: False Swearing A sworn statement carries weight because the person giving it has formally promised that it is true. When a service member takes a lawful oath and then makes a statement......
  2. 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......
  3. 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......
  4. 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......
  5. 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......
  6. 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,......
  7. 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......
  8. 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......
  9. 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......
  10. UCMJ Article 84: Breach of Medical Quarantine When a contagious illness threatens a warship, a barracks, or a forward-deployed unit, commanders and medical officers can place affected personnel under quarantine to keep an outbreak from spreading. A......
  11. 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......
  12. 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......
  13. UCMJ Article 130: Stalking Repeated, unwanted attention can become a crime long before it turns into a physical attack. Following someone day after day, flooding a person with threatening messages, or watching their movements......
  14. 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......
  15. UCMJ Article 134: Self-Injury Without Intent to Avoid Service Not every intentional self-injury in the military is treated the same way. The Uniform Code of Military Justice draws a line based on why the injury was inflicted. When a......