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.
Why does the UCMJ need a separate article for military passes and identification cards when Article 105 already covers forgery? Because military identification documents aren’t ordinary paperwork. A military ID grants access to installations, authorizes benefits, establishes identity for security purposes, and in some cases determines whether someone is treated as a combatant or civilian. Tampering with these documents creates risks that extend beyond financial fraud into physical security and force protection.
Article 105a (10 U.S.C. § 905a) codifies that distinction. Created by the MJA 2016, it replaced pre-2019 Article 134 specifications that had handled military ID and pass offenses under the general article. The standalone codification reflects a legislative judgment that these offenses are specific enough and serious enough to warrant their own elements and penalty structure.
The Offense Categories
The MCM 2024 (Part IV, Paragraph 59) defines the offenses under Article 105a. The structure follows a possession-versus-use framework that calibrates punishment to the dangerousness of the conduct.
The basic offense: wrongfully and knowingly making, altering, counterfeiting, or tampering with a military or official pass, permit, discharge certificate, or identification card. This covers the creation side: the person who produces, modifies, or corrupts the document. “Wrongfully” excludes authorized alterations by competent authority. “Knowingly” excludes mistakes or negligence. The accused must have deliberately engaged in the falsification.
The possession offense: wrongfully and knowingly possessing a false or unauthorized military or official pass, permit, discharge certificate, or identification card. Possession alone is sufficient. The accused doesn’t need to have created the document. Having it with knowledge that it’s false or unauthorized completes the offense.
The aggravated offense: using or possessing the false document with intent to defraud. This is the escalation point. Intent to defraud means the accused planned to use the document to deceive someone for advantage, gaining unauthorized access, obtaining benefits, or establishing a false identity for official purposes. The intent-to-defraud distinction separates a souvenir from a security breach and drives the punishment differential.
The Force Protection Dimension
A false military ID isn’t just a fraudulent document. It’s a potential security vulnerability. Military installations control access through identification verification. A false Common Access Card (CAC) or military dependent ID could enable unauthorized access to secure areas, weapons storage, communications facilities, or operational planning spaces. In an era of insider threats and force protection concerns, the security dimension of false military identification goes beyond the fraud concern that Article 105 (forgery) addresses.
This security dimension explains why Article 105a covers “military or official pass, permit, discharge certificate, or identification card” as a specific category rather than folding these documents into the general forgery provision. The items protected by Article 105a are access-granting instruments. Their falsification creates a security risk that document forgery in general does not necessarily create.
Punishment Escalation
The punishment structure reflects the possession-versus-use distinction. Basic making or altering without intent to defraud: bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and six months’ confinement. Possession or use with intent to defraud: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and three years’ confinement.
The jump from six months to three years tracks the distance between possessing a false document and weaponizing it. The intent-to-defraud element transforms a document offense into a security offense, and the punishment ceiling adjusts accordingly. A service member caught with a fabricated ID in their locker faces one set of consequences. A service member caught using that ID to enter a restricted area faces a substantially different set.
Article 105a also intersects with Article 106 (Impersonation) when the false ID is used to impersonate an officer, agent, or official. The false document becomes the tool for the impersonation, and both offenses can be charged based on the same conduct. Article 107 (False Official Statements) may also apply when the false identification is presented to someone in an official capacity who asks for identification.
The intent-to-defraud distinction is what separates a souvenir from a security breach. A fake ID in a drawer is one thing. A fake ID used to enter an installation, access a weapons vault, or collect benefits is something categorically different. Article 105a calibrates its punishment to that difference, and the escalation from six months to three years tracks the distance between possessing a false document and deploying it against the systems that military security depends on.
Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law: Article 105a criminalizes the making, altering, counterfeiting, or tampering with military identification documents, passes, permits, and discharge certificates. Created by the MJA 2016, it addresses military ID fraud as a standalone offense separate from general forgery under Article 105.
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.