§ Article 131b : Obstructing Justice

Article 131b of the UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 931b) punishes wrongful conduct in the case of a person against whom the accused had reason to believe there were or would be criminal or disciplinary proceedings pending, done with intent to influence, impede, or otherwise obstruct the due administration of justice.

Who It Applies To

Any person subject to the UCMJ who engages in conduct in the case of a certain person against whom the accused had reason to believe there were or would be criminal or disciplinary proceedings pending, with intent to influence, impede, or otherwise obstruct the due administration of justice.

What It Covers

1. The accused wrongfully did a certain act.
2. The accused did so in the case of a certain person against whom the accused had reason to believe there were or would be criminal or disciplinary proceedings pending.
3. The act was done with intent to influence, impede, or otherwise obstruct the due administration of justice.

Key rules

• The offense may be based on conduct before charges are preferred, and actual obstruction is not an element.
• Criminal proceedings include general and special courts-martial and all other criminal proceedings. Disciplinary proceedings include summary courts-martial and nonjudicial punishment proceedings.
• Under the Manual, examples include wrongfully influencing, intimidating, impeding, or injuring a witness, a person acting on charges, a preliminary hearing officer, or a party; and using bribery, intimidation, misrepresentation, or force or threat of force to delay or prevent communication of information about a federal crime to authorized investigators or prosecutors, or endeavoring to do so.
• In decisions summarized in the CAAF case digest, the courts have described “wrongfully” as an act done without legal justification or with some sinister purpose. Under those decisions, advising someone to exercise a constitutional right, such as the right to remain silent, is not by itself obstruction; the question is whether the advice was given with the intent to obstruct, judged from the words used and the surrounding circumstances.

Maximum Punishment

Maximum authorized punishment. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.

Sentencing parameters. Category 2 (1–36 months).

The newer sentencing rules apply, subject to the capital-case rules, when the accused is convicted only of offenses committed after 27 December 2023. See How UCMJ Sentencing Rules Apply. The maximum authorized punishment and the applicable sentencing framework do not predict the sentence in a particular case.

Related and Distinguished

• Misprision of a serious offense (Article 131c) requires a positive act concealing a completed offense, rather than conduct aimed at a pending or anticipated case.
• Wrongful refusal to testify (Article 131d) addresses a witness’s refusal after being directed to testify.
• Perjury and subornation of perjury (Article 131, Article 131a) involve false statements under oath.
• Retaliation for reporting an offense or making a protected communication is addressed by Article 132, and interference with an adverse administrative proceeding by Article 131g.

What the Provision Does

Article 131b applies to wrongful conduct in a case in which the accused had reason to believe criminal or disciplinary proceedings were or would be pending, done with intent to influence, impede, or otherwise obstruct the due administration of justice. The maximum confinement is 5 years.

History

Article 131b was added to the UCMJ by the Military Justice Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-328, § 5445), effective January 1, 2019. Before then, obstructing justice was charged as an enumerated offense under Article 134.

Sources

• 10 U.S.C. § 931b (Article 131b, UCMJ)
• Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 2024 edition, Part IV, ¶ 83
• Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 ed.), Appendix 12B and Appendix 12C
• United States v. Reeves, 61 M.J. 108 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (under the circumstances of that case, an accused could be convicted of obstructing justice, then an Article 134 offense, for telling another person not to speak to investigators and to seek counsel)
• United States v. Gleason, 78 M.J. 473 (C.A.A.F. 2019) (a novel Article 134 specification for interfering with an emergency call failed to state an offense because the conduct was covered by the then-enumerated Article 134 offense of obstructing justice)