UCMJ Article 134 Self-Injury vs Article 115 Malingering: Actually Harming Yourself vs Faking Illness

Whether the harm is real or faked does not separate these two offenses; the statute draws the line at purpose. Malingering has been Article 83 since January 1, 2019, and it covers both feigning illness and intentionally inflicting self-injury when the purpose is to avoid work, duty, or service. The Article 134 offense is intentional self-injury without that purpose.

Article 115, the older malingering number, has covered communicating threats since the same date.

The two statutes

Article 83 applies to any person subject to the UCMJ who, with the intent to avoid work, duty, or service:

(1) feigns illness, physical disablement, mental lapse, or mental derangement; or
(2) intentionally inflicts self-injury;

Source: 10 U.S.C. § 883 (Article 83), added by Pub. L. 114-328, § 5404.

The self-injury offense has no statute of its own. It is one of the offenses the Manual for Courts-Martial lists under the general article:

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital … shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial

Source: 10 U.S.C. § 934 (Article 134).

What malingering requires

The Manual lists three elements (MCM, Part IV, ¶ 7.b):

• the accused was assigned to, or was aware of prospective assignment to, or availability for, the performance of work, duty, or service;
• the accused feigned illness, physical disablement, mental lapse, or mental derangement, or intentionally inflicted injury on himself or herself;
• the accused’s purpose or intent was to avoid that work, duty, or service.

A fourth element is added when the offense is committed in time of war or in a hostile fire pay zone.

The Manual calls “the purpose to shirk” the thing that “characterizes the offense” (¶ 7.c(1)). The purpose can be to avoid all duty or one particular job. Because purpose is the core, the nature or permanency of a self-inflicted injury, and the seriousness of a sham disability, are “not material on the question of guilt.” The extent of the injury or feigned disability can still be evidence that the purpose was present or absent.

An injury does not have to be violent. The Manual counts any act or omission that “produces, prolongs, or aggravates any sickness or disability,” and gives voluntary starvation resulting in debility as an example (¶ 7.c(2)).

Self-injury without intent to avoid service

The Article 134 offense has two elements: the accused intentionally inflicted injury on himself or herself, and under the circumstances the conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline, service discrediting, or both (MCM, Part IV, ¶ 107.b). War or a hostile fire pay zone again adds an element.

The Manual states the difference from malingering directly: for this offense, “the accused need not have harbored a design to avoid performance of any work, duty, or service” (¶ 107.c(1)). The accused does not have to be unable to perform duties or be absent from duty because of the injury; the Manual’s example is an injury inflicted while on leave or pass. The circumstances and extent of the injury bear on whether the conduct was prejudicial or service discrediting. The injury may also be inflicted by another person at the accused’s request (¶ 107.c(2)).

How the facts sort

For example, a service member told of an upcoming field exercise claims back pain that does not exist so as to stay behind. That is malingering by feigning, under clause (1). If the same service member instead injures a hand for the same reason, the offense is still malingering, under clause (2). An intentional self-injury with no connection to avoiding any duty falls outside Article 83 and can be charged under Article 134 only if the circumstances make it prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting.

The act can be identical in the second and third situations. What changes the article is the evidence of purpose.

Suicide attempts

The Discussion that accompanies both paragraphs in the Manual states: “Bona fide suicide attempts should not be charged as criminal offenses.” It adds that, in deciding whether an injury was a bona fide suicide attempt, the convening authority should consider factors including health conditions, personal stressors, and DoD policy related to suicide prevention (¶ 7 and ¶ 107, Discussion).

The Discussion is supplementary material. The Manual’s own preamble says such materials “do not have the force of law.” Whether a particular injury was a bona fide suicide attempt, and whether the conduct was prejudicial or service discrediting, are decided on the facts of the case.

The Veterans Crisis Line serves service members, National Guard and Reserve members, veterans, and those who support them. It is reached by dialing 988 and pressing 1, or by texting 838255.

Maximum punishments

The same injury carries a 5-year ceiling when charged as malingering and a 2-year ceiling under Article 134; the element that separates the two charges is the purpose to avoid duty. Where every finding of guilty is for an offense committed after December 27, 2023, the military judge sets the sentence in a general or special court-martial, capital cases aside (10 U.S.C. § 853(b)(1)).

Sources

• 10 U.S.C. § 883, malingering (Article 83)
• 10 U.S.C. § 934, general article (Article 134)
• 10 U.S.C. § 915, communicating threats (Article 115)
• 10 U.S.C. § 853, findings and sentencing (Article 53)
• Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 edition), Part IV, ¶ 7 and ¶ 107, and the Preamble.
• Veterans Crisis Line

General legal information on Articles 83 and 134; it does not assess any injury or charge in a real case. This page reflects the UCMJ as amended through Public Law 119-60 (December 18, 2025) and the Manual for Courts-Martial (2024 edition) as amended by Executive Order 14130.