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.
The U.S. military maintains property inventories measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars, from individual rifles and body armor to aircraft carriers and satellite systems. Every item is tracked, every item is assigned to someone’s responsibility, and every item that goes missing, gets damaged, or ends up where it shouldn’t be creates accountability questions. Article 108 provides the criminal framework for answering those questions.
The article covers four categories of misconduct involving military property of the United States: selling or otherwise disposing of it, willfully or through neglect damaging, destroying, or losing it, and willfully or through neglect suffering it to be lost, damaged, destroyed, sold, or wrongfully disposed of.
Selling, Damaging, Losing, Suffering Loss
The MCM 2024 (Part IV, Paragraph 60d) details the elements for each variant.
Selling or disposing
Any person subject to the UCMJ who sells or otherwise disposes of military property of the United States. This covers the deliberate transfer of government property to someone who shouldn’t have it, selling government equipment, giving away military supplies, trading military property for personal benefit. “Otherwise disposes of” is broad enough to cover any unauthorized transfer, whether for profit or not.
Willful damage, destruction, or loss
Any person who willfully damages, destroys, or loses military property. “Willfully” means intentionally. A service member who deliberately smashes a government laptop has committed willful destruction. A service member who deliberately abandons equipment in the field has committed willful loss.
Negligent damage, destruction, or loss
The same acts committed through neglect rather than intention. Leaving sensitive equipment unsecured in an unlocked vehicle, resulting in theft, has lost government property through neglect. The threshold is whether the accused failed to exercise the degree of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the same circumstances.
Suffering loss through willfulness or neglect
This category reaches the service member who doesn’t personally cause the loss but allows it to happen. Consider a supply sergeant who knows subordinates are pilfering from the supply room and does nothing has suffered military property to be lost through neglect. The distinction from direct loss is the accused’s role as custodian or supervisor rather than direct actor.
The Negligence Standard
Article 108 (10 U.S.C. § 908)’s inclusion of negligence distinguishes it from many other UCMJ offenses that require intentional conduct. The military’s logic is practical: government property is entrusted to service members who bear responsibility for its care. Negligent loss or damage, while less culpable than willful destruction, still represents a failure of the duty of care that accompanies property accountability.
The negligence standard creates charging decisions in the gray zone between accident and carelessness. A weapon that discharges during authorized cleaning due to an unforeseeable mechanical defect is an accident, not negligence. A weapon that discharges because the service member failed to clear it before cleaning is negligence. The question is whether a reasonably prudent service member would have done something different.
Valuation and Punishment
Maximum punishments under Article 108 scale with the value of the property and the nature of the misconduct. Willful offenses involving property worth more than $1,000 carry the heaviest maximum: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and ten years’ confinement. Negligent offenses and lower-value willful offenses carry reduced maximums.
The value-based scaling reflects a proportionality principle: destroying a $50 radio through negligence and selling a $500,000 weapons system are both Article 108 offenses, but the institutional harm differs dramatically. The punishment framework tracks that difference.
Relationship to Other Property Articles
Article 108 covers military property of the United States specifically. Article 109 covers non-military government property and private property. Article 108a covers captured or abandoned property. Article 121 covers larceny and wrongful appropriation, the taking of property with intent to permanently deprive (larceny) or temporarily deprive (wrongful appropriation) the owner.
The distinction matters: a service member who steals military equipment faces Article 121 charges for the theft and potentially Article 108 charges for the wrongful disposition of the property. The two articles address different dimensions of the same conduct, the taking and the loss.
A service member who sells government equipment, destroys it in frustration, or loses it through carelessness has damaged something beyond the item itself. The military’s property accountability system tracks millions of items across thousands of locations, and it works only when individual responsibility at every level is enforceable. Article 108 provides that enforcement. Without it, accountability becomes voluntary, and voluntary accountability in an organization that depends on equipment readiness is no accountability at all.
Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law: Article 108 covers four categories of misconduct involving U.S. military property: selling or disposing of it, willfully damaging or destroying it, losing it through neglect, and suffering it to be lost or wrongfully disposed of. The article protects the government’s material readiness across hundreds of billions of dollars in assets.
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.