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.
Article 106a of the UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 906a) makes wearing unauthorized military insignia, decorations, badges, ribbons, devices, or lapel buttons a punishable offense. Unlike the civilian Stolen Valor Act of 2013, which requires intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit, Article 106a requires no such intent. The knowing, unauthorized wearing is itself the offense.
What the Article Prohibits
Article 106a (10 U.S.C. § 906a) targets any person subject to the UCMJ who wrongfully wears insignia, decoration, badge, ribbon, device, or lapel button they are not authorized to wear. The prohibition is comprehensive: it covers rank insignia worn by someone not holding that rank, combat and skill badges not earned through the required qualification, unit insignia worn without authorization, decorations and ribbons not properly awarded, and any other device or button restricted to specific personnel.
“Wrongfully” requires the wearing to be without authorization and with knowledge that the item isn’t authorized. A service member who mistakenly wears a unit patch from a previous assignment on the wrong uniform may not have acted wrongfully. A service member who deliberately pins on a Bronze Star they never received has.
The Trust Economy of Military Symbols
Military decorations and insignia aren’t accessories. They constitute a visible record of service, qualification, and accomplishment that the entire military community reads and relies on. A Combat Action Badge signals that the wearer has been under direct fire. Airborne wings signal completion of parachute training. A Purple Heart signals wounds received in combat. A specific rank insignia signals a level of authority, responsibility, and experience.
When these symbols are worn without authorization, they devalue the achievements of those who earned them and corrupt the information system that military personnel use to assess each other’s capabilities, experience, and authority. A service member wearing unauthorized parachutist wings may be assigned to an airborne unit based on an assumption of qualification that doesn’t exist, creating an operational risk that extends beyond the individual.
How This Differs from Impersonation
Article 106 (Impersonation) requires actively assuming a role or identity, exercising authority, giving orders, claiming to be someone specific. Article 106a requires only the wearing of unauthorized items. The threshold is lower: no active deception beyond the display itself is required.
This means Article 106a catches conduct that falls short of impersonation but still undermines the integrity of the military’s symbol system. Wearing an unearned Ranger tab doesn’t involve impersonating a specific person or issuing orders, but it falsely signals a qualification that the military community treats as meaningful.
Maximum punishment: bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and six months’ confinement. The relatively light maximum reflects the article’s focus on display rather than active deception, it’s the starting point, not the ceiling, for the military’s response to identity fraud.
The MCM 2024 (Part IV, Paragraph 60a) identifies two elements: the accused wore a specific insignia, decoration, badge, ribbon, device, or lapel button; and the wearing was wrongful, meaning without authorization. The simplicity of the elements gives prosecutors a low threshold for charging. The complexity lies in the “wrongful” determination, which depends on the specific regulations governing wear of the item in question. Each service branch publishes detailed uniform regulations (AR 670-1 for Army, AFI 36-2903 for Air Force, MCO 1020.34 for Marines, BUPERSINST 1020.6 for Navy) that specify authorization requirements for every item of insignia.
Article 106a also covers wearing insignia from foreign military services without authorization and wearing unauthorized unit awards or deployments patches. The scope is broad enough to encompass the service member who adds a deployment patch for a tour they didn’t complete and the service member who wears a foreign parachutist badge without going through the proper approval process.
Article 106a reflects the operational reality that military insignia carry functional significance beyond personal recognition. The people around a service member make real decisions based on what they see on a uniform, and those decisions can have consequences that extend to the unit, the mission, and the personnel depending on both.
Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law: Article 106a makes it a UCMJ offense for any service member to wrongfully wear unauthorized insignia, decorations, badges, ribbons, or devices. Unlike the civilian Stolen Valor Act, no intent to obtain tangible benefit is required. The knowing, unauthorized wearing is itself 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.