UCMJ Article 134 – Wrongful Interference with Adverse Administrative Proceedings

This enumerated offense under Article 134 punishes service members who wrongfully interfere with adverse administrative proceedings. These proceedings include investigations, boards of inquiry, separation boards, correctional custody actions, or other administrative processes that can impose significant consequences short of criminal prosecution. Because the military relies on fair and impartial proceedings to enforce discipline, any attempt to influence or obstruct them is treated as serious misconduct.

Unlike obstruction of justice (which targets criminal investigations or judicial proceedings), this offense applies specifically to administrative processes. It ensures that commanders and boards can carry out their duties free from undue influence, threats, or manipulation.

Key Elements

The prosecution must prove:

  1. That an adverse administrative proceeding was pending against a service member.
  2. That the accused wrongfully attempted to or did interfere with the proceeding.
  3. That the interference was unlawful and without authority.
  4. That, under the circumstances, the conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Scope and Application

Wrongful interference includes:

  • Threatening or intimidating members of an administrative board.
  • Bribing or attempting to bribe officials involved in the process.
  • Altering, concealing, or destroying documents related to the proceeding.
  • Pressuring witnesses not to testify or to provide false statements.
  • Using influence or command authority improperly to alter the outcome.

This article protects both the accused service member and the system itself by ensuring decisions are based solely on lawful evidence and argument.

Punishment

  • Maximum punishment: Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for up to 5 years.

Defenses

Possible defenses include:

  • Lawful authority: If the accused acted within official duties or command authority.
  • No intent to interfere: If the act was not aimed at obstructing or influencing the proceeding.
  • Procedural error: If no adverse administrative proceeding was actually pending.
  • Insufficient proof: If the government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that interference occurred.

Examples

If a soldier pressures a fellow service member to withhold evidence during a separation board, Article 134 applies. If a Marine bribes a board member to influence the result of an administrative discharge, it qualifies. If an airman deliberately destroys unfavorable evaluation records before a board review, it is punishable. By contrast, a commander advising a service member of rights under lawful authority is not wrongful interference.

Conclusion

Article 134 wrongful interference with adverse administrative proceedings ensures fairness, accountability, and discipline in the military’s non-criminal processes. By punishing interference, the UCMJ reinforces confidence in administrative boards and prevents abuse of authority, intimidation, or corruption.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. How is this offense different from obstruction of justice?
Obstruction of justice applies to criminal cases and judicial proceedings, while wrongful interference applies to administrative boards and processes. Both involve unlawful influence, but Article 134 focuses on proceedings like separations, inquiries, and correctional custody. This ensures fairness across all forms of military discipline.

2. What qualifies as an “adverse administrative proceeding”?
Examples include separation boards, boards of inquiry, correctional custody hearings, or administrative demotions. These are processes where a service member’s career or rights are at stake. Any attempt to tamper with such proceedings may qualify as interference. The scope is broader than just criminal cases.

3. What is the maximum punishment for this offense?
Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for up to 5 years. This reflects the seriousness of undermining fairness in administrative processes. Penalties can end a military career permanently. Courts impose harsh sentences to deter misconduct.

4. What kinds of acts are considered interference?
Acts like bribing board members, intimidating witnesses, destroying documents, or using unlawful command influence. Even attempts to interfere are punishable. The misconduct lies in trying to manipulate outcomes instead of letting the process work fairly.

5. Can commanders be guilty of wrongful interference?
Yes, if they unlawfully influence the process outside their lawful duties. For example, pressuring board members or ordering witnesses to change testimony may qualify. However, lawful acts such as providing evidence or following regulations are not wrongful. Command authority must remain within legal limits.

6. What if the accused acted without intent to interfere?
Intent is key. If the government cannot prove the accused intended to obstruct or influence the proceeding, guilt may not be established. Accidental mistakes or misunderstandings are not usually punishable. The prosecution must show wrongful intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

7. Can service members face charges for advising friends?
If advice crosses into encouraging concealment, lies, or refusal to cooperate, it may qualify as interference. Simply providing lawful advice or recommending legal counsel is not wrongful. The difference lies in whether the advice corrupts the process.

8. Does this offense require the proceeding to be ongoing?
Yes, an adverse administrative proceeding must be pending. If no proceeding existed at the time, the charge may not apply. However, if proceedings were clearly anticipated and the accused acted to block them, liability may still attach.

9. Can this offense overlap with other UCMJ violations?
Yes. It may overlap with obstruction of justice, false official statements, or destruction of property. Prosecutors often charge multiple offenses to cover all aspects of the misconduct. Each offense has unique elements but may arise from the same act.

10. Why is wrongful interference punished so severely?
Because it undermines the fairness and credibility of the military system. Service members must have confidence that administrative boards operate honestly. Interference destroys trust and damages discipline, so the military enforces accountability with strong penalties.

Sources

  • Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 934, Article 134 (Wrongful Interference with Adverse Administrative Proceedings)
  • Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 edition)
  • Army Regulation 27-10, Military Justice
  • Navy JAGMAN (Judge Advocate General’s Manual) § 0166
  • Air Force Instruction 51-201, Administration of Military Justice
  • Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, United States v. Stombaugh, 40 M.J. 208 (C.M.A. 1994)
  • 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 134 or any other UCMJ provision, you should consult a qualified military attorney.

Related:

  1. UCMJ Article 134 – False or Unauthorized Pass Offenses Under Article 134, service members can be punished for the wrongful making, altering, selling, or use of passes that grant liberty, leave, or access to restricted areas. A “pass” includes liberty passes, leave authorizations, and similar official documents. Because the...
  2. UCMJ Article 134 – Straggling This enumerated offense under Article 134 punishes service members who, without proper authority, fall behind, stray, or otherwise separate themselves from their unit, organization, or assigned duty while marching, moving, or on the march. Straggling undermines discipline, delays unit movement,...
  3. UCMJ Article 130 – Housebreaking UCMJ Article 130 criminalizes housebreaking, which is the unlawful entry of a building or structure with intent to commit a criminal offense inside. Unlike burglary under Article 129, housebreaking does not require nighttime entry or that the structure be a...
  4. UCMJ Article 134 – Misprision of a Serious Offense Misprision under Article 134 punishes a service member who knows that a serious offense has been committed but fails to report it and instead conceals it. This misconduct undermines military justice by allowing crimes to go unreported and obstructs the...
  5. UCMJ Article 134 – Soliciting Another to Commit an Offense This enumerated offense under Article 134 punishes a service member who wrongfully solicits or advises another person to commit a crime under the UCMJ. Solicitation undermines discipline because it spreads misconduct, corrupts others, and shows deliberate intent to violate the...
  6. 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....
  7. UCMJ Article 134 – Pandering and Prostitution This enumerated offense under Article 134 punishes service members who engage in prostitution or promote it through pandering. Prostitution is the act of offering or receiving sexual activity for money or other compensation. Pandering occurs when a service member compels,...
  8. UCMJ Article 82 – Solicitation UCMJ Article 82 defines the offense of solicitation. It punishes a service member who wrongfully solicits or advises another to commit a UCMJ offense, provided the solicitation was made with the intent that the offense actually be committed. The solicitation...
  9. UCMJ Article 134 – Self-Injury Without Intent to Avoid Service This enumerated offense under Article 134 punishes service members who intentionally injure themselves without the specific intent of avoiding service. While malingering under Article 115 addresses self-harm to evade duty, Article 134 focuses on wrongful self-injury committed for other reasons,...
  10. UCMJ Article 133 – Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman UCMJ Article 133 criminalizes conduct by commissioned officers, cadets, or midshipmen that dishonors or disgraces them personally, or seriously compromises their standing as officers. The article is intentionally broad, designed to uphold the integrity and character expected of military leaders....
  11. UCMJ Article 134 – The General Article UCMJ Article 134, known as the “General Article,” is a catch-all provision that criminalizes a wide range of misconduct not specifically addressed in other articles of the UCMJ. It punishes behavior that is prejudicial to good order and discipline in...
  12. UCMJ Article 134 – Reckless Endangerment This enumerated offense under Article 134 punishes service members who engage in conduct that recklessly or wantonly creates a substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm to another person. Unlike negligent acts, reckless endangerment requires proof that the accused...
  13. 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...
  14. UCMJ Article 134 – Worthless Check Offenses (Dishonorably Failing to Maintain Funds) This enumerated offense under Article 134 punishes service members who make, draw, utter, or deliver a check, draft, or order for the payment of money without having sufficient funds or credit and who dishonorably fail to maintain funds to cover...
  15. 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...