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.
Wearing rank you haven’t earned. Flashing credentials you don’t hold. Claiming authority that doesn’t belong to you. Article 106 targets all of these, not because the military cares about costumes, but because impersonation in a military environment can produce real consequences: orders followed, access granted, resources allocated, decisions made, all based on a status the impersonator doesn’t possess.
What the Article Covers
Article 106 (10 U.S.C. § 906) criminalizes the wrongful impersonation of a commissioned officer, a warrant officer, a noncommissioned officer, a petty officer, or an agent or official of the United States or any state, territory, commonwealth, or possession of the United States. The scope is deliberately wide, it covers impersonation of military ranks across the spectrum and extends to civilian government agents and officials.
“Wrongful impersonation” means assuming the identity or role of a specific person or type of person with the intent to deceive. The deception must be purposeful, accidentally being mistaken for an officer because of similar clothing isn’t impersonation. Deliberately putting on officer rank insignia and issuing orders to enlisted personnel is.
The article distinguishes between impersonating a specific individual (“I am Captain Smith”) and impersonating a class of person (“I am a federal agent”). Both are covered. The first creates risk of harm to the specific person being impersonated. The second exploits the authority associated with a role rather than a name.
Why This Matters in Military Context
In civilian life, impersonating a police officer is a crime because it enables the impersonator to exercise coercive authority they don’t lawfully possess. The military context amplifies this concern. Military rank carries authority that people are trained to obey reflexively. An order from a superior is presumed lawful and expected to be followed. Command structure depends on the assumption that rank insignia accurately represents authority.
A private who impersonates a sergeant to redirect a work detail has abused a trust system. A civilian who impersonates an officer to gain installation access has defeated a security system. An enlisted member who impersonates a federal agent to obtain information has exploited government authority. In each case, the harm isn’t just the specific deception, it’s the erosion of confidence in the signals (rank, credentials, identification) that the military system relies on to function.
Relationship to Article 106a
Article 106 (Impersonation) and Article 106a (Wearing Unauthorized Insignia) address related but distinct conduct. Article 106 requires impersonation, actively assuming a role or identity. Article 106a covers the narrower act of wearing insignia, decorations, badges, ribbons, devices, or lapel buttons one isn’t authorized to wear.
The distinction: a service member who wears a Combat Infantryman Badge they didn’t earn has violated Article 106a but hasn’t necessarily impersonated anyone. A service member who wears full officer insignia and actively exercises authority over enlisted personnel has likely violated both articles, but the impersonation is the more serious offense because it involves the active exercise of false authority, not merely the display of unearned symbols.
Elements and Defense Considerations
The MCM 2024 (Part IV, Paragraph 60) breaks Article 106 into two offense variants. For impersonating a military officer or NCO: the accused assumed the character of a specified military rank or position, and the assumption was wrongful. For impersonating an agent or official: the accused falsely represented themselves as an agent or official of a specified entity, and the representation was wrongful.
“Wrongful” is the key modifier. A service member performing in a theatrical production who wears officer insignia hasn’t committed impersonation. Neither has a service member participating in a training exercise where role-playing different ranks is part of the scenario. The wrongfulness element requires that the impersonation was unauthorized and intended to deceive in a non-theatrical, non-training context.
Defense counsel typically attack either the wrongfulness element or the scope of the impersonation. Wearing rank insignia as a joke among friends in barracks, with no attempt to exercise authority, may lack wrongfulness. Claiming a rank in casual conversation without exercising any authority may lack the active assumption of character that “impersonation” requires. The line between bragging and impersonation depends on whether the accused attempted to exercise the authority or obtain the benefits associated with the impersonated status.
Article 106 intersects with Article 121 (Larceny) when the impersonation is used to obtain property or services. It intersects with Article 105a (False or Unauthorized Pass) when false identification documents support the impersonation. And in cases where the impersonation involves entering restricted areas or obtaining classified information, charges under Article 103a (Espionage) or Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation) may compound the Article 106 charge.
Maximum punishment for Article 106: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and three years’ confinement.
Consider the practical scenario: a person wearing a colonel’s insignia enters a military installation, issues orders to junior personnel, and accesses restricted areas. By the time the impersonation is discovered, the damage is done, and the orders may already have been executed. The offense isn’t about the uniform. It’s about the trust system that the uniform represents, and the operational consequences when that system is exploited.
Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law: Article 106 criminalizes the wrongful impersonation of a commissioned officer, warrant officer, NCO, petty officer, or any agent or official of the United States or a state. The deception must be purposeful, and the article covers both impersonating a specific individual and impersonating a class of person.
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.