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.
A sergeant signs an officer’s name on a leave authorization form. A specialist alters the date on a temporary duty order to extend travel reimbursement. A finance clerk creates a fictional pay adjustment document with a forged supervisor signature. Each of these involves a different method, false creation, alteration, and forgery of a signature, but all fall under Article 105 (10 U.S.C. § 905).
Military operations generate massive volumes of documents requiring signatures, approvals, and authorizations. Article 105 protects the integrity of that documentary system by criminalizing three distinct forms of document fraud, each targeting a different way the system can be corrupted.
False Making, False Altering, Forgery
The MCM 2024 (Part IV, Paragraph 58) separates Article 105 into three distinct offenses with different elements.
False making
The accused, with intent to defraud, falsely made or altered a certain signature or writing of a type which would, if genuine, apparently impose a legal liability on another or change another’s legal right or liability to that other’s prejudice. This is forgery in its classic sense: creating a document that appears authentic but isn’t, or altering a genuine document to change its legal effect. The “legal liability or right” requirement distinguishes forgery from simple falsification. The forged document must, on its face, appear to create or modify a legal obligation. A fabricated leave form that appears to authorize absence modifies the accused’s legal obligation to be present, satisfying this element.
Uttering
The accused, with intent to defraud, uttered, offered, issued, or transferred a certain signature or writing (the accused then knowing it to be falsely made or altered), and the signature or writing was of a type that would, if genuine, apparently impose a legal liability on another or change another’s legal right or liability to that other’s prejudice. “Uttering” means putting the forged document into circulation, presenting it to someone as genuine. The false maker and the utterer may be different people: one person forges a document, another presents it to a finance office. Both commit separate offenses under Article 105.
Signature forgery
The accused, with intent to defraud, signed another’s name to a document without proper authority. This is the most frequently charged Article 105 offense in practice, because military operations constantly require signatures from specific authorized individuals, and the temptation to sign someone else’s name to keep paperwork moving is persistent. The “without proper authority” element matters: signing another person’s name when authorized to do so (through a power of attorney or official delegation) is not forgery.
The Intent to Defraud Requirement
All three offenses require intent to defraud. This is a specific intent element. The accused must have intended to deceive and to gain some advantage or cause some disadvantage through that deception. A service member who signs a supervisor’s name to a routine form without any deceptive purpose, for example because the supervisor verbally authorized the action, may lack the intent element even if the signature was technically unauthorized.
How Forgery Differs from False Statements
Article 105 (forgery) and Article 107 (false official statements) overlap in practice but target different conduct. Article 107 criminalizes making a false statement in an official capacity or signing a false document knowing it to be false. Article 105 criminalizes creating or altering a document to make it appear genuine, or signing another person’s name without authority.
The distinction matters for charging. A service member who writes a memorandum containing lies has made a false official statement under Article 107. A service member who creates a memorandum that appears to come from someone else, with a forged signature, has committed forgery under Article 105. Both may be charged simultaneously if both elements are present: the document is both forged (someone else’s signature) and false (the contents are lies).
Article 104 (Public Records Offenses) adds another layer when the forged document is a public record. Forging entries in an official military record can trigger both Article 105 and Article 104, each capturing a different dimension of the harm.
Punishment and Practical Consequences
Maximum punishment for all three Article 105 offenses: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and five years’ confinement. The severity reflects the cascading damage forgery causes: misdirected funds, unauthorized actions, corrupted records, and the erosion of trust in the documentary system that military administration depends on.
In practice, Article 105 charges frequently accompany financial fraud cases. A service member who creates false travel vouchers with forged supervisor signatures faces Article 105 (for the forgery), Article 107 (for the false statements in the voucher), and potentially Article 121 (Larceny) for the money obtained through the fraud. The stacking of charges reflects the multiple harms: the forged document, the false claim, and the stolen funds are each separate violations.
Military administration runs on documents. Pay authorizations, leave requests, equipment receipts, transfer orders, medical records. When any of those documents contain forged signatures, altered terms, or fabricated content, the cascading consequences extend well beyond the single page. Article 105 treats forgery as what it functionally is: an attack on the documentary infrastructure that the military depends on to operate.
Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law: Article 105 covers three distinct document fraud offenses: false making of a document, false alteration of an existing document, and forgery of a signature or instrument. Each targets a different way the military’s documentary trust system can be corrupted.
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.