This article is part of a comprehensive series covering the punitive articles of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Service members facing any UCMJ charge should consult a qualified military defense attorney.
Every person who enters the military does so through a process designed to verify qualifications: medical fitness, criminal history, educational credentials, citizenship status, age, dependency status, and a range of other eligibility criteria established by law and regulation. Article 104a (10 U.S.C. § 904a) exists because some people lie their way in, or lie their way out.
The article targets fraud at the gateway: the point where a person enters or exits military service. It doesn’t regulate conduct during service. It regulates the truthfulness of the representations that made service possible or made separation happen. Before the MJA 2016, these offenses were covered by old Article 83 (fraudulent enlistment) and portions of Article 134. The restructuring consolidated them into a single article with clearer element breakdowns.
Lying In: Fraudulent Enlistment or Appointment
The first offense under MCM 2024 (Part IV, Paragraph 56): procuring one’s own enlistment or appointment through knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to qualifications, and receiving pay or allowances under that enlistment or appointment. Two separate acts must be proven, the fraud and the receipt of pay.
The “receiving pay” element matters more than it appears at first glance. It transforms the fraud from a mere false statement into an ongoing financial offense. Every paycheck received under a fraudulent enlistment compounds the violation. The element also means the offense is not complete at the moment of enlistment. A person who lies on their application but is caught at MEPS before swearing in and before receiving any pay has not completed the offense under Article 104a, though they may face charges under Article 107 (False Official Statements) for the lie itself.
“Knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment” means the accused knew the truth and chose to misrepresent it. An applicant who genuinely didn’t know about a disqualifying medical condition hasn’t committed the offense. An applicant who knew about it and lied on the medical history form has. The distinction between ignorance and concealment is where the knowledge element does its work.
Common scenarios: concealed criminal history (failing to disclose felony convictions or pending charges), concealed medical conditions (hiding disqualifying diagnoses to pass through MEPS), false educational credentials (claiming a degree that doesn’t exist), concealed drug use history, and concealed prior service under unfavorable conditions (omitting a previous discharge that would bar reenlistment).
Lying Out: Fraudulent Separation
The second offense: procuring one’s own separation from the armed forces through knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to eligibility for that separation. This covers the exit side: a service member who fabricates a medical condition, misrepresents family hardship, or conceals disqualifying information to obtain a discharge they aren’t entitled to.
Fraudulent separation cases often involve fabricated hardship claims under the Dependency or Hardship Discharge program (AR 635-200, Chapter 6 for Army; corresponding regulations in other branches), misrepresented medical conditions for a medical evaluation board or disability discharge, or concealed facts that would make the service member ineligible for the type of discharge they’re seeking.
The intersection with Article 104b is direct: Article 104a punishes the person who fraudulently enters or exits. Article 104b punishes the person who knowingly helps them do it, the recruiter who looks the other way, the personnel officer who processes paperwork they know is false. Together, they cover both sides of the transaction.
Punishment Differential and Defense Considerations
The MCM establishes different maximum punishments for the two offenses. Fraudulent enlistment or appointment: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and two years’ confinement. Fraudulent separation: the same discharge and forfeiture but five years’ confinement, reflecting the judgment that deceiving the military to leave service is more damaging than deceiving it to enter.
The logic is straightforward. A person who lies to get in at least intends to serve. A person who lies to get out is evading an obligation already undertaken, and the separation itself may be difficult or impossible to reverse once completed. An administrative separation, once executed, creates a chain of consequences: the position is filled, the training investment is lost, and the administrative machinery of reversal is cumbersome.
Defense in Article 104a cases typically challenges the knowledge element. Did the accused actually know about the disqualifying condition? Medical history cases are particularly fact-dependent: a service member who had a childhood asthma diagnosis that was later resolved may genuinely not have considered it a disqualifying condition when the recruiting form asked about respiratory history. The distinction between a knowing lie and a good-faith misunderstanding of what the question asked is often the difference between conviction and acquittal.
The statute of limitations follows the general five-year rule under Article 43 (10 U.S.C. § 843), but the clock doesn’t start until the fraud is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered. A fraudulent enlistment concealed for six years may still be prosecutable if the fraud wasn’t discovered until year five.
Article 104a addresses a specific vulnerability in the military personnel system: the points of entry and exit where the institution relies on individual truthfulness to function. The military can verify much of what applicants claim, but not everything, and the system depends on honest disclosure for the gaps verification can’t fill. When that honesty breaks down, the integrity of the entire personnel system is compromised, and Article 104a provides the mechanism to hold individuals accountable.
Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law: Article 104a targets fraud at the gateway of military service, criminalizing both fraudulent enlistment through false representation and fraudulent separation. The offense requires both the fraud itself and the receipt of pay or allowances under the fraudulent enlistment.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this content. If you are facing charges under the UCMJ or need legal guidance regarding military justice matters, consult a qualified military defense attorney.