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 private tells his squad leader, “If you give me that detail again, I’ll break your jaw.” A lieutenant sends an email to a subordinate: “You keep filing complaints and something bad will happen to you.” A specialist posts on social media that she’s going to “take care of” a fellow soldier who she believes is spreading rumors about her. Three different methods, three different contexts, but all fall under Article 115 (10 U.S.C. § 915) if the communication was wrongful and the threat was to injure a person, their property, or their reputation.
Before the MJA 2016, threats were prosecuted under Article 134 (General Article) as conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. The MJA gave communicating threats its own article with specific elements, moving it from the general catch-all into the enumerated offenses. The change wasn’t just organizational. Standalone codification means defense counsel can challenge the elements directly rather than litigating the broader Article 134 framework of prejudice to good order and discipline.
Elements and Scope
The MCM 2024 (Part IV, Paragraph 67) lays out the elements: the accused communicated a threat to injure the person, property, or reputation of another; and the communication was wrongful.
That’s a deceptively simple framework. The complexity lives in what each term means in practice.
“Communicated” covers every medium: spoken words, written notes, text messages, emails, social media posts, voice messages, gestures, or any other method of conveying information from one person to another. The threat doesn’t need to reach the intended target. A threat communicated to a third party, “Tell Sergeant Jones I’m going to hurt him,” satisfies the element even if Sergeant Jones never hears about it. The act of communication, not reception, completes the element.
“Threat” means an expressed intent to inflict harm. The accused doesn’t need to have actually intended to carry out the threat. A threat made in anger with no real intention to follow through is still a threat under Article 115. What matters is the communication itself, not the accused’s subjective plan. This distinguishes Article 115 from Article 128 (Assault), which requires either an attempt or offer to do bodily harm. Threats that fall short of assault, because no immediate ability or apparent attempt was present, still violate Article 115.
What Makes a Threat “Wrongful”
“Wrongful” means without justification or excuse. This element excludes communications that, in context, aren’t actually threats: a drill sergeant’s corrective language during training, an instructor’s description of consequences for failing to meet standards, or a commander’s lawful warning about disciplinary action. Context determines whether the communication was a threat or an authorized exercise of authority.
Injury to Person, Property, or Reputation
Article 115’s reach extends beyond physical violence. Threats to damage someone’s property (“I’ll key your car”) and threats to damage someone’s reputation (“I’ll tell the commander what you did”) fall within the statute. The reputation provision is particularly significant in a military environment where reputation directly affects career trajectory, security clearances, and command trust.
This breadth means Article 115 covers coercion and intimidation that wouldn’t constitute assault. A service member who threatens to expose a colleague’s personal information unless they comply with a demand has committed an Article 115 offense and potentially also an offense under Article 127 (Extortion), which requires the threat to be made with the intent to obtain something of value.
The “injury to reputation” language also covers the social media dimension of modern military life. Threats to post compromising photos, share private information, or damage someone’s professional standing through online activity fall within Article 115. The medium is irrelevant; the communication of a threat to injure reputation is what the statute prohibits.
Cross-Charging and the Threat Spectrum
Article 115 sits at a specific point on the spectrum of interpersonal offenses, and understanding where it sits clarifies when other articles apply.
Below Article 115 on the severity spectrum: Article 117 (Provoking Speeches or Gestures), which covers language designed to provoke but not necessarily threatening specific harm. Above Article 115: Article 128 (Assault), which requires either an attempt or offer to do bodily harm, or an act likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm. When a threat is accompanied by conduct that constitutes an attempt to carry it out, the charge escalates from Article 115 to Article 128.
Article 115 also interacts with Article 134 when the threatening communication occurs in specific contexts: threats against the President (which is a separate offense), bomb threats against military installations, or threats that constitute harassment under the military’s sexual harassment framework. Domestic violence contexts frequently generate Article 115 charges alongside protective order violations under Article 92.
Maximum punishment: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and three years’ confinement. The maximum reflects the military’s position that threats undermine unit cohesion and the trust necessary for effective military operations, even when the threat is never carried out. In a hierarchical organization where personnel must trust each other with their lives, a culture of threats and intimidation is incompatible with mission capability.
A threat doesn’t need to be carried out to cause damage. The squad leader who was threatened works differently. The subordinate who fears retaliation reports differently. The unit where threats are tolerated functions differently. Article 115 treats the communication itself as the harm, intervening before the physical violence that other articles address, because the military recognizes that the degradation of trust within a unit begins with words, not actions.
Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law: Article 115 criminalizes the wrongful communication of a threat to injure the person, property, or reputation of another. The MJA 2016 moved this offense from the Article 134 catch-all into a standalone article with specific elements. The threat need not be carried out to complete the offense.
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.