Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case involves unique facts and circumstances. If you are facing charges under the UCMJ, consult with a qualified military defense attorney immediately.
Both Article 104 and Article 107 address official dishonesty, but they target different types of misconduct. Article 104 addresses tampering with public records: altering, concealing, removing, mutilating, or destroying official documents. Article 107 addresses making false official statements: lying in any official context. One is about what you do to documents; the other is about what you say. Understanding this distinction helps clarify when document-related misconduct becomes a records offense versus a false statement offense.
The Action Distinction
Article 104 Public Records Offenses involves:
Physical actions toward documents
Altering, concealing, removing, mutilating, obliterating, or destroying
Official records, documents, or other government property
The focus is on tampering with existing records.
Article 107 False Official Statements involves:
Making statements (oral or written)
That are false
In an official context
With knowledge of falsity
The focus is on lying, not on physical document tampering.
Different Protected Interests
Article 104 protects:
Integrity of official records
Government property (documents)
The historical record of official actions
Trust in documentary evidence
Article 107 protects:
Truthfulness in official communications
Integrity of official decision-making
Trust in what people say in official contexts
Accurate information flow within the military
Both protect governmental functions but from different angles: document integrity versus communication truthfulness.
Article 104: Public Records Elements
Public records offenses require:
Official records or documents. Government records, official papers, or documents with legal significance.
Prohibited action. The accused:
Altered the record
Concealed the record
Removed the record
Mutilated the record
Obliterated the record
Destroyed the record
Wrongfulness. The action was without authorization.
This covers physical tampering with official paperwork.
Article 107: False Statements Elements
False official statements require:
A statement. Oral or written communication.
Made officially. In the context of official duties or matters.
False. The statement was untrue.
Knowledge. The accused knew it was false when made.
This covers lying in official contexts regardless of documents.
Overlap Scenario
Some conduct might implicate both articles:
Example: A service member falsifies a training record by changing dates and then signs a statement certifying the record is accurate.
Article 104: Altering the official training record
Article 107: Making a false statement (the certification)
Both articles might apply to different aspects of the same misconduct.
When Each Article Applies
Article 104 clearly applies when:
Someone physically alters an existing document
Someone destroys official records
Someone conceals documents to prevent discovery
The misconduct involves the document itself
Article 107 clearly applies when:
Someone lies verbally to investigators
Someone signs a false statement
Someone makes false entries on a form
Someone provides false information in an official report
The distinction:
Changing what a document says: Article 104 (and possibly 107 if done through false statement)
Lying about what happened: Article 107
Destroying evidence: Article 104
Typical Fact Patterns
Clear Article 104 (records offense):
A service member shreds official investigation files to prevent discovery of misconduct. Destruction of public records.
An NCO uses correction fluid to alter dates on leave forms after they were signed. Altering public records.
A clerk removes personnel files from the official folder and hides them. Concealing public records.
Clear Article 107 (false statement):
A service member tells investigators “I was at the gym” when they were actually off-post without authorization. False official statement (oral).
A service member signs a travel voucher claiming reimbursement for a trip they didn’t take. False official statement (written).
A service member certifies that subordinates completed training when they didn’t. False official statement.
Both articles potentially apply:
A service member creates a backdated document to cover misconduct and then submits it as if it were an original record. Creating the false document involves false statement principles; inserting it into official files might involve records tampering.
The “Official” Requirement
Both articles require official context:
For Article 104: The records must be “public records” or official government documents. Personal notes aren’t covered.
For Article 107: The statement must be made “with intent to deceive” in an official context. Casual conversation isn’t covered.
Lying to your buddy about why you were late isn’t Article 107. Lying to your commander about the same thing is.
Punishment Comparison
Article 104 (Public Records):
Varies by specific offense
Generally: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 3 years (or more depending on circumstances)
Article 107 (False Official Statements):
Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 5 years
Both carry serious punishment reflecting the threat to military administration and integrity.
Digital Records
Modern records are often electronic:
Article 104 applies to electronic records:
Deleting files from official systems
Altering electronic documents
Manipulating databases
Concealing digital evidence
Article 107 applies to electronic statements:
False entries in electronic systems
False emails in official capacity
False entries on digital forms
The digital nature doesn’t change the analysis; it’s still records tampering or false statements.
Defenses
For Article 104:
Authorization to alter, remove, or destroy the records
The documents weren’t official/public records
No tampering actually occurred
Mistake or accident (no intent to tamper)
For Article 107:
The statement was true
No intent to deceive
The statement wasn’t made in an official context
The accused didn’t know the statement was false
The Cover-Up Problem
Both offenses often arise from cover-up attempts:
Original misconduct: Service member does something wrong
Cover-up attempt: They destroy evidence (Article 104) or lie about it (Article 107)
Result: Now facing the original charges plus records or statement charges
The cover-up often becomes worse than the original offense. Destroying records or lying adds serious charges to whatever started the problem.
Chain of Custody Implications
Article 104 violations can affect other proceedings:
Evidence integrity. Altered records may be inadmissible.
Case dismissal. If key records were destroyed, cases may fail.
Credibility damage. Anyone who tampers with records loses credibility in all matters.
Tampering with records affects not just the tamperer but the integrity of the system they corrupted.
Administrative vs Criminal
Both offenses can be handled administratively or criminally:
Minor incidents might result in counseling or administrative action
Serious incidents warrant court-martial
Factors affecting disposition:
Severity of the falsification or tampering
Impact on military operations or justice
Pattern of dishonesty
Rank and position of the accused
Even administrative handling for these offenses can end careers because both involve fundamental dishonesty.
Frequently Asked Questions
If I made a mistake on an official form and corrected it, is that altering public records?
Generally no. Legitimate corrections to records aren’t criminal if done properly. Most official forms have procedures for corrections: single line through the error, initials, date, and correct entry. Following these procedures isn’t “altering” in the criminal sense. Criminal alteration involves unauthorized changes made to deceive, conceal, or falsify. If you made an honest mistake and corrected it through proper procedures, that’s administrative correction, not criminal tampering. However, if you made a “correction” that actually changes the truth of the record, or you altered a record after it was finalized to conceal something, that becomes problematic. The intent and method matter as much as the physical change.
What’s the difference between a false official statement and perjury?
Both involve lying, but perjury (Article 131) specifically requires lying under oath in a competent proceeding. False official statement (Article 107) covers lying in any official context, with or without an oath. Perjury is a subset of official lying: the most formal type, made under oath in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. False official statement is broader: it covers lies to commanders, on official forms, to investigators, in reports, and in any official matter. Lying under oath is both perjury and a false official statement. Lying to your commander without an oath is a false official statement but not perjury. The oath and proceeding requirements distinguish perjury as a specific, more formal offense.
Can I be charged with both Article 104 and Article 107 for falsifying a document?
Potentially, depending on the facts. If you altered an existing official document (Article 104) and also made false statements in connection with that alteration (Article 107), both charges might apply. For example, if you changed dates on a training record (altering the document) and then certified that the record was accurate (false statement), you’ve committed two distinct acts that might support both charges. Courts apply multiplicity rules to prevent unfair double punishment for what is essentially one act, but when distinct elements are satisfied by different conduct, both charges may proceed. Prosecutors evaluate whether the facts better support one article or both.