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.
Desertion cases are rare. Mutiny is almost nonexistent in modern military practice. False official statements under Article 107 (10 U.S.C. § 907)? Prosecutors file these charges routinely, across every branch, every installation, every fiscal year. It is one of the most frequently charged UCMJ articles, and one of the most misunderstood. The statute covers two distinct offenses that sound similar but operate under different legal standards: making a false official statement and false swearing. The first requires no oath. The second requires one. The first requires knowledge of falsity and intent to deceive. The second requires knowledge of falsity and an oath or equivalent affirmation.
Both target the same institutional vulnerability: the military’s dependence on truthful information flowing through official channels.
False Official Statements
The first offense: any person subject to the UCMJ who, with intent to deceive, makes, signs, or causes to be made or signed any false statement in any official record or other official document. The MCM 2024 (Part IV, Paragraph 60b) sets out the elements.
False means knowingly false, not merely inaccurate. A service member who reports equipment as “operational” based on a genuine but mistaken belief has made an inaccurate statement, not a false one. A service member who reports equipment as “operational” knowing it failed its last inspection has made a false statement.
It must also be in an “official” record or document, or be an “official” statement. The MCM interprets “official” broadly, it includes any document made in the line of duty or any statement made to a person authorized to receive it in an official capacity. Statements on leave requests, counseling forms, investigative questionnaires, readiness reports, financial documents, and sworn statements all qualify.
Intent to deceive is required. The accused must have known the statement was false and intended it to mislead the recipient. This eliminates honest mistakes, good-faith errors, and statements where the accused didn’t know the truth. But intent to deceive doesn’t require intent to harm, a service member who lies on a leave form to visit a girlfriend rather than the stated destination has the required intent even if no one was harmed.
False Swearing and the Double Structure of Article 107
The second offense: any person subject to the UCMJ who makes any false statement under oath. This is the military equivalent of perjury, but broader. It applies to any statement under oath, not just testimony in court proceedings. Sworn statements during investigations, affidavits, declarations under penalty of perjury, and any other statement made under a legally administered oath fall within scope.
False swearing doesn’t require the “official document” element. The oath itself provides the gravity. A service member who lies during a sworn statement to a military investigator commits false swearing regardless of whether the statement is subsequently memorialized in a written document.
The knowledge requirement is the same: the accused must have known the statement was false when made. The intent-to-deceive element, however, is not explicitly required for false swearing, the violation of the oath itself constitutes the offense.
The combination of both offenses within a single article reflects two different mechanisms for ensuring truthful information in the military. Official documents carry inherent weight because of their status, a signed readiness report is trusted because it’s official. Sworn statements carry weight because of the oath, a witness’s testimony is trusted because they’ve sworn to tell the truth.
Article 107 protects both mechanisms. A service member who lies on an official document without an oath violates the first offense. A service member who lies under oath, whether in a document or verbally, violates the second. The offenses can overlap: a service member who signs a false sworn statement has potentially violated both.
Maximum punishment for false official statement: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and five years’ confinement. The same maximum applies to false swearing. The severity reflects the cascading damage false information can cause in a system where decisions, deployments, promotions, investigations, resource allocation, depend on the reliability of official information.
Article 107 intersects frequently with other UCMJ articles. It runs alongside Article 105 (Forgery) when a false statement appears in a forged document. It compounds Article 121 (Larceny) when the false statement is the mechanism for obtaining money or property. It parallels Article 131 (Perjury) when the false statement occurs during judicial proceedings, though perjury requires a proceeding before a competent tribunal while false swearing does not. And in investigation contexts, Article 107 false statements often surface alongside Article 134 (Obstruction of Justice) when the lie was told to derail an investigation.
The defense most frequently advanced in Article 107 cases is the absence of knowledge: the accused didn’t know the statement was false. The second most common defense challenges the “official” nature of the statement or document. Statements made in casual conversation, even between service members, don’t trigger Article 107 unless they’re made in an official capacity or memorialized in an official document. The line between a casual conversation and an official inquiry can be blurry, and defense counsel regularly exploit that ambiguity.
The frequency tells the story. Desertion cases are rare. Mutiny is almost nonexistent in modern practice. False official statements appear on charge sheets routinely, across every branch, at every rank, in contexts ranging from training records to financial disclosures to investigative interviews. Article 107 occupies the gap between what people know and what they are willing to say on the record, and that gap, it turns out, is where a significant portion of military justice practice lives.
Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law: Article 107 covers two distinct offenses: making a false official statement with intent to deceive, and false swearing under oath or affirmation. It is one of the most frequently charged UCMJ articles, targeting the military’s dependence on truthful information flowing through official channels.
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.